/ 


Germany's  Point 
of  View 


BY 

Edmund  von  Mach 

A.B.,  A.M.,  Ph.D.  (Harvard) 

Author  of 

''What  Germany    Wants" 


CHICAGO 

A.  C.  McCLURG  &  CO. 

1915 


^  --N^ 

^aW 


Copyright 

A.  C.  McClurg  &  Co. 

1915 


Published  July,  1915 


W.  F.  HALL  PRINTING  COMPANY,  CHICAGO 


To 

MY  WIFE 

Wise  Counsellor  and  Diligent  Helper 

MARY  WARE  VON  MACH 


Barn  in  a  New  England  Parsonage 

of  Mayflower  stock 

Lover  of  Truth 

and  therefore  convinced 

of  the 

JUSTICE  OF  THE  GERMAN  CAUSE 

This  Book  is  Dedicated 

in 

Love  and  Gratitude 


355315 


PREFACE 

THIS  book  contains  a  collection  of  articles,  revised, 
which  appeared  in  the  Wednesday  editions  of 
the  Boston  Evening  Transcript,  October  14,  1914,  to 
May  5,  1915,  under  the  caption  "The  German 
Viewpoint,''  and  which,  therefore,  present  a  certain 
record  of  seven  months  of  the  European  War.  The 
last  two  chapters  were  prepared  for  The  Transcript, 
but  were  delivered  as  an  address  before  the  German 
University  League  in  New  York. 

The  purpose  of  these  articles  was  not  to  comment 
on  the  progress  of  the  war,  but  to  go  to  the  root  of 
things,  and  to  explain,  if  possible,  why  those  who  had 
not  lost  faith  in  Germany  differed  from  many  of  their 
fellow  citizens  in  their  interpretation  of  the  relative 
merits  of  the  causes  of  the  several  belligerents.  These 
articles,  therefore,  contain  a  wealth  of  economic  data, 
historical  documents,  and  individual  interpretations 
which  it  is  hoped  will  show  that  in  this  war  the  right 
is  on  the  side  of  Germany. 

It  was  at  first  suggested  that  the  publication  of  these 
articles  in  book  form  demanded  the  obliteration  of 
all  cursory  references  to  the  incidents  of  the  war. 
On  second  thought,  however,  this  appeared  not  to  be 
desirable,  because  the  articles  as  they  stand,  reflect,  to 
a  certain  extent,  the  historical  sequence  of  the  pres- 
entation of  the  several  ideas  to  the  public  opinion  of 
the  country.  Those  readers  who  wish  to  pursue  a 
given  subject  irrespective  of  the  time  when  this  or 
that  part  of  it  was  offered  to  the  original  readers  of 
The  Transcript,  are  enabled  to  do  so  by  a  table  of 
contents  which  is  arranged  by  subjects. 


Preface 

The  author  had  one  more  object  in  mind  in  col- 
lecting these  articles  in  book  form.  There  has  been 
much  bitter  feeling  against  the  American  press  among 
the  pro-Germans  in  this  country,  and  among  the  Ger- 
mans in  the  Fatherland.  Without,  unfortunately, 
being  able  to  affirm  that  Germany  has  received  fair 
treatment,  the  author  wishes  to  bear  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  the  spirit  of  fair  play  has  nevertheless  been 
more  prevalent  here  than  in  some  of  the  other 
neutral  states.  When  the  war  is  over  the  knowledge 
that  articles  like  these  appeared  week  after  week,  and 
at  times  when  the  passions  were  highest,  in  a  distinctly 
pro-Allies  paper  of  such  importance  as  the  Boston 
Transcript  will  take  some  of  the  sting  out  of  the 
charge  of  unfairness  made  against  the  American 
press.  The  defenders  of  the  good  name  of  Germany 
had  to  contend  against  great  odds,  but  they  were  not 
entirely  denied  the  opportunity  of  pleading  their  case, 
as  happened  in  other  countries. 

In  this  connection  it  is  only  right  to  state  that  not 
once  during  the  thirty  weeks  that  the  author  was 
asked  by  the  owner  and  managing  editor  of  the 
Boston  Transcript  to  contribute  his  weekly  "View- 
points,'' was  any  request  made  or  any  pressure 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  to  lessen  his  freedom  of 
expression.  On  the  contrary,  the  author  had  an 
absolutely  free  hand,  and  his  articles  were  printed 
as  he  had  written  them.  This  implies  a  degree  of 
generosity  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  duplicate 
outside  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Edmund  von  Mach. 
Cambridge,  Mass.,  May,  1915, 


^  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I  Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?  i 

II  The  German  Constitution 14 

III  Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War       ...  28 

IV  England's  Conduct  of  the  War        ...  43 
V  Japan    and    Kiau-Chau — Germany     and 

Belgium 58 

VI  Germany    as    a    World    Power — Alsace- 
Lorraine     73 

VII  Alsace-Lorraine 87 

VIII  English     and     French     Voices — German 

Victories loi 

IX  English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy  112 

X  Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable?  126 

XI  German   Soldiers        140 

XII  The  Meaning  of  Tipperary 149 

XIII  Germany  Broke  No  Treaty 162 

XIV  The    Straightforward    Conduct    of    Ger- 

many        175 

XV  The  English  Web  of  Calumny     ....  190 

XVI  "La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France"  203 

XVII  The  French  Yellow  Book       216 

XVIII  The  French  Yellow  Book  (Continued)  242 

XIX  The  French  Yellow  Book  (Concluded)  257 

XX  German  Scientists  on  the  War       .     .     .  269 

XXI  The  German  Food  Supply      .....  280 

XXII  The  German  Food  Supply  (Concluded)  293 


Contents 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXIII  Naval  War  and  International  Law     .     .  303 

XXIV  The  Declaration  of  London 315 

XXV    Bismarck       328 

XXVI     Bulgaria .  338 

XXVII     The  Exportation  of  Arms 351 

XXVIII  The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals    .    .  363 

XXIX  How  England  and  France  Wage  War    .  378 

XXX     Sir  Edward  Grey 390 

XXXI     Sir  Edward's  Evidence 401 

XXXII  Sir  Edward's  Evidence  (Concluded)       .  419 

Index 439 


GERMANY'S  POINT  OF  VIEW 


GERMANY'S  POINT  OF  VIEW 


CHAPTER  I 

DID   ENGLAND   WANT   A    NEUTRAL   BELGIUM? 

IT  IS  a  great  mistake  to  believe  that  the  German 
nation  is  ready  to  condone  a  criminal  action  for 
the  sole  reason  that  it  was  committed  by  their  own 
government.  On  the  contrary,  no  people  will  be  se- 
verer in  their  censure  of  the  infringement  of  Belgian 
neutrality  than  the  Germans  themselves,  if  it  is  found 
that  the  facts  in  the  case  are  those  presented  by  the 
British  statesmen  and  not  those  given  currency  in 
Germany. 

James  Bryce  recently  introduced  his  general  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  with  these  words : 

Moreover,  the  facts,  at  least  as  we  in  England  see  and 
believe  them,  and  as  the  documents  seem  to  prove  them 
to  be,  appear  not  to  be  known  to  the  German  people, 
and  the  motives  of  the  chief  actors  are  not  yet  fully 
ascertained. 

This  very  fair  statement  should  make  one  willing, 
in  the  interest  of  truth,  to  listen  to  the  facts  as  they 
appear  to  the  German  people.  They  are  here  given, 
not  in  a  controversial  spirit,  but  to  complete  the  record, 
so  to  speak,  of  the  case  before  the  court  of  public 
opinion. 

Much  uncertainty  exists  concerning  the  treaties  on 
which  Belgian  neutrality  rests,  and  even  James  Bryce 

I 


Germany's  Point  of  View 


apparently  neglected  to  look  them  up,  although  he 
doubtless  knows  that  in  such  cases  one  cannot  always 
rely  on  one's  memory. 

These  are  the  facts :  The  division  between  Holland 
and  Belgium,  both  of  which  countries  had  been  parts 
of  the  old  German  empire,  was  established  by  the 
treaty  of  1831.  In  1839  Great  Britain,  France,  Aus- 
tria-Hungary, Prussia,  and  Russia  signed  a  supple- 
mentary treaty  guaranteeing  the  neutrality  of  Belgium 
and  accepting  in  toto  the  articles  of  the  earlier  treaty. 
In  1870  there  was  considerable  uncertainty  about  the 
binding  force  of  the  treaty  of  1839,  some  holding 
that  the  guarantee  of  Belgian  neutrality  forced  the 
signatory  Powers  not  only  themselves  to  respect  the 
neutrality  but  also  to  compel,  by  force  of  arms,  all 
other  nations  to  respect  it;  others  —  and  among  them 
Mr.  Gladstone — declared  in  the  British  Parliament 
that  a  guarantee  made  under  entirely  different  con- 
ditions was  not  enforceable.  Since  it  was,  however, 
desirable  from  every  point  of  view  that  Belgian  neu- 
trality should  be  respected  during  the  Franco-Prussian 
War  of  1870,  Great  Britain  negotiated  special  treaties 
with  Prussia  and  France,  respectively,  on  August  9 
and  II,  1870.  The  treaties  are  identical  in  wording, 
substituting  in  the  second  treaty,  of  course,  France 
for  Prussia  wherever  this  name  occurs.  After  the 
preamble  the  treaty  reads : 

Article  I.  His  Majesty  the  king  of  Prussia  having  de- 
clared that  notwithstanding  the  hostilities  in  which  the 
North  German  Confederation  is  engaged  with  France,  it 
is  his  fixed  determination  to  respect  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium  so  long  as  the  same  shall  be  respected  by  France. 
Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,,  on  her  part  declares  that,  if  during 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium f       3 

the  said  Hostilities  the  Armies  of  France  should  violate 
that  Neutrality,  she  will  be  prepared  to  cooperate  with 
his  Prussian  Majesty  for  the  defence  of  the  same  in  a 
manner  as  may  be  mutually  agreed  upon,  employing  for 
that  purpose  her  Naval  and  Military  forces  to  insure  its 
observance,  and  to  maintain,  in  conjunction  with  his  Prus- 
sian Majesty,  then  and  thereafter,  the  Independence  and 
Neutrality  of  Belgium. 

It  is  clearly  understood  that  Her  Majesty  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  does  not  engage 
herself  by  this  treaty  to  take  part  in  any  of  the  general 
operations  of  the  war  now  carried  on  between  the  North 
German  Confederation  and  France,  beyond  the  limits  of 
Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  of  19th  April,  1839. 

Article  II.  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  agrees  on 
his  part,  in  the  event  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  article, 
to  cooperate  with  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  employing  his 
naval  and  military  forces  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  and 
the  case  arising,  to  concert  with  her  majesty  the  measures 
which  shall  be  taken  separately  or  in  common,  to  secure 
the  neutrality  and  independence  of  Belgium. 

Article  III.  This  treaty  shall  be  binding  on  the  High 
Contracting  Parties  during  the  Continuance  of  the  present 
war  between  the  North  German  Confederation  and  France, 
and  for  twelve  months  after  the  Ratification  of  any 
Treaty  of  Peace  concluded  between  those  parties,  and  on 
the  expiration  of  that  time  the  Independence  and  Neu- 
trality of  Belgium  will,  so  far  as  the  High  Contracting 
Parties  are  respectively  concerned,  continue  to  rest  as 
heretofore  on  Article  i  of  the  Quintuple  Treaty  of  the 
19th  of  April,  1839. 

If  this  treaty  of  1870  is  studied  in  the  light  of  Mr. 
Gladstone's  remarks  in  Parliament,  the  conclusion  that 
the  earlier  treaty  placed  no  enforceable  obligations  on 
Great  Britain  seems  reasonable.  For  if  it  did,  no 
valid  reason  for  a  new  treaty  appears,  because  a  mere 
announcement  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  that  it 
understood  her  guarantee  of  1839  to  be  enforceable 
in  1870,  would  have  been  sufficient.    And  more,  from 


Germany's  Point  of  View 


the  wording  of  Article  I  it  may  be  possible  to  deduce 
that  at  that  time  neither  France  nor  Prussia  nor  Great 
Britain  saw  in  the  treaty  of  1839  a  moral  obligation 
of  the  contestants  to  respect  Belgian  neutrality.  If 
they  had  done  so,  it  is  probable  —  some  say  certain  — 
that  the  phrase  "guaranteed  by  Prussia  [France]  in 
the  treaty  of  1839"  would  have  been  inserted  after 
the  phrase  "'  his  fixed  determination  to  respect  the  neu- 
trality of  Belgium." 

Mr.  Lloyd  George  in  an  address  to  his  Welsh  com- 
patriots, delivered  in  October,  19 14,  ignored  these 
treaties  of  1870,  referring  merely  to  a  preliminary 
enquiry  whether  both  France  and  Prussia  intended  to 
respect  Belgian  neutrality,  and  continued: 

That  was  in  1870.  Mark  what  followed.  Three  or 
four  days  after  that  document  (an  address  of  thanks  from 
Belgium)  was  received,  the  French  army  was  wedged 
up  against  the  Belgian  frontier,  every  means  shut  out, 
a  ring  of  flame  from  Prussian  cannon.  There  was  one 
way  of  escape.  What  was  that?  Violate  the  neutrality 
of  Belgium.  What  did  they  do?  The  French  on  that 
occasion  preferred  ruin,  humiliation,  to  the  breaking  of 
their  bond.  French  emperor,  French  marshals,  a  hundred 
thousand  gallant  Frenchmen  in  arms,  preferred  to  be  car- 
ried captive  to  the  strange  land  of  their  enemy  rather 
than  dishonor  the  name  of  their  country. 

It  was  the  last  French  army  in  the  field.  Had  they 
violated  Belgian  neutrality  the  whole  history  of  that  war 
would  have  been  changed.  Yet  when  it  was  for  the  in- 
terest of  France  to  break  the  treaty  [of  1839,  Lloyd  George 
did  not  mention  the  one  1870]  she  did  not  do  it. 

It  is  the  interest  of  Prussia  to  break  the  treaty,  and 
she  has  done  it. 

Mr.  Lloyd  George  is  silent  on  the  fact  that  Great 
Britain  would  have  automatically  taken  up  arms 
against  France,  if  she  had  thus  violated  Belgian  neu- 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?        5 

trality.  The  most  charitable  view  of  this  omission 
is  that  he  did  not  know  of  the  existence  of  the  treaties 
of  1870.  In  this  case,  howeve-r,  since  he  is  a  member 
of  the  present  British  Government  the  authority  of 
the  utterances  by  this  government  is  somewhat  les- 
sened. A  less  charitable  view,  and  one  which  one 
cannot  blame  the  Germans  for  taking,  is  that  he  wil- 
fully suppressed  the  mention  of  these  treaties ;  for  the 
question  occurs  at  once  to  all  who  have  read  these 
treaties,  was  it  not  possible  to  negotiate  similar  trea- 
ties in  1914  and  keep  Great  Britain  out  of  the  war? 
To  this  question  the  British  Government  will  find  it 
difficult  to  give  an  answer,  for  Germany  asked  Great 
Britain  before  entering  Belgium  whether  she  would 
formulate  conditions  under  which  she  would  remain 
neutral.  Great  Britain  refused  to  answer  in  the  affirm- 
ative. Why?  This  why  has  never  been  explained. 
Why  was  she  unwilling  to  do  in  1914  what  she  did  in 
the  treaties  of  August  9  and  11,  1870? 

If  Great  Britain  had  guaranteed  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium  by  similar  treaties  as  those  of  1870,  Germany 
would  not  have  felt  that  her  unprotected  flank  on  the 
lower  Rhine  was  endangered.  One  glance  at  the 
map  shows  that  a  successful  French  attack  here  would 
have  threatened  the  German  naval  base  and  the  great 
ports  of  Hamburg  and  Bremen.  Why  did  Great 
Britain  refuse  to  guarantee  the  neutrality  of  Belgium? 
There  may  be  many  reasons  as  yet  unknown,  but  since 
she  has  offered  none,  is  it  altogether  unreasonable 
for  the  Germans  to  believe  what  they  are  told  by  a 
Government  which  through  more  than  twenty-five 
years  has  won  their  confidence,  namely,  that  on  July 
30,  which  was  several  days  before  the  declaration  of 


Germany's  Point  of  View 


war,  Great  Britain  gave  to  France  definite  assurances 
of  support  against  Germany  in  the  expected  war? 

This  is  contrary  to  the  official  documents  issued  by 
the  British  Government,  and  the  Germans,  knowing 
the  difficulty  of  proving  such  assertions,  were  willing 
to  wait  for  the  evidence.  In  substantiation  of  their 
claim  the  German  Government  has  now  published,  in 
the  official  Gazette  of  September  12,  the  following 
letter  and  explanation : 

On  July  31,  a  letter  was  mailed  in  Berlin  addressed  to 
Madame  Costermans,  107  Rue  Froissard,  Bruxelles,  Bel- 
gique.  On  the  same  day  military  law  was  declared  in 
Germany,  whereupon  all  foreign  mail  was  stopped  and 
returned  to  the  place  of  issue.  After  having  been  bulle- 
tined the  legal  number  of  days,  the  letter  was  sent  to  the 
Dead  Letter  Office  and  opened  to  ascertain  the  sender. 
In  the  outer  envelope  there  was  another,  addressed  to 
Son  Excellence  Monsieur  Davignon,  Ministre  des  Af- 
faires Etrangeres.  This  envelope  also  failed  to  contain 
a  return  address.  It  was  opened  and  contained  this  letter 
signed  by  B.  de  I'Escaille,  the  Belgian  minister,  and  dated: 
The  Belgian  legation,  St.  Petersburg,  795-402.  The  Po- 
litical Condition,  July  30,  1914.  The  letter  in  transla- 
tion reads: 

Yesterday  and  the  day  before  passed  in  anticipation 
of  the  events  which  must  follow  the  Austria-Hungary 
declaration  of  war  on  Servia.  The  most  contradictory 
news  is  being  spread  and  it  has  been  impossible  to 
separate  truth  from  fiction  concerning  the  intentions  of 
the  Imperial  (Russian)  Government.  Only  one  fact 
is  incontestable,  namely,  that  Germany  has  endeavored 
here,  as  well  as  in  Vienna,  to  find  a  means  by  which 
to  avoid  a  general  conflict,  but  that  she  has  met  on 
the  one  hand  the  determination  of  the  Vienna  cabinet 
not  to  yield  one  iota,  and  on  the  other  the  suspicion 
of  the  Petersburg  cabinet  as  regards  the  assurances  of 
Vienna  that  it  is  contemplating  only  the  punishment, 
and  not  the  acquisition,  of  Servia. 

Mr.  Sazonof  has  declared  that  it  was  impossible  for 
Russia  not  to  keep  herself  in  readiness  nor  to  mobilize. 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?        7 

but  that  these  measures  were  not  taken  against  Germany. 
This  morning  an  official  communique  to  the  papers  an- 
nounced that  the  "  reservists  in  a  certain  number  of  gov- 
ernments had  been  called  to  the  colors."  He  who  knows 
the  reticence  of  the  official  Russian  communiques  may- 
well  assert  that  the  mobilization  is  general. 

The  German  ambassador  declared  this  morning  that 
he  had  reached  the  end  of  his  endeavors  as  mediator, 
pursued  incessantly  since  Saturday,  and  that  he  had 
practically  no  hope  left.  I  have  just  been  told  that  the 
British  ambassador  had  expressed  himself  to  the  same 
effect.  Latterly  England  proposed  arbitration,  but  Mr. 
Sazanof  replied:  "We  ourselves  proposed  this  to  Aus- 
tria, who  declined."  The  suggestion  of  a  conference  was 
met  by  Germany  with  the  suggestion  of  an  agreement 
between  the  cabinets.  One  is  tempted  to  ask  if  the 
whole  world  is  not  wanting  war,  trying  only  to  postpone 
the  declarations  of  war  in  order  to  gain  time. 

At  first  England  let  it  be  known  that  she  did  not  wish 
to  be  drawn  into  a  conflict.  Sir  George  Buchanan  openly 
said  this.  Today,  however,  St.  Petersburg  is  convinced 
— nay,  more,  they  have  the  assurance  that  England  will 
support  France.  [Aujourd'hui  on  est  fennement  con- 
vaincu  a  St.  Petersburg,  on  en  a  meme  Vassurance  que 
rAngleterre  soutiendra  la  France.']  This  assurance 
carries  great  w^eight,  and  has  done  not  a  little  to  give  the 
upper  hand  to  the  war  party. 

The  Russian  Government  has  given  free  rein  to  all 
pro-Servian  and  anti-Austrian  manifestations  these  past 
days.  In  the  cabinet  meeting  early  yesterday  morning 
differences  of  opinion  still  existed,  and  the  announce- 
ment of  the  mobilization  was  postponed.  Since  then  a 
change  has  taken  place ;  the  war  party  has  gained  the 
upper  hand,  and  today  at  four  o'clock  in  the  morning  the 
mobilization  was  publicly  announced. 

The  army  believes  itself  strong  and  is  full  of  enthu- 
siasm. It  bases  its  hopes  on  the  remarkable  progress  it 
has  made  since  the  Japanese  war.  The  navy  is  still  so 
far  from  the  realization  of  its  programme  of  reconstruc- 
tion and  reorganization  that  it  really  cannot  be  said  to 
count.  This  was  the  reason  which  gave  England's  assur- 
ance of  support  so  much  weight. 

As  I  had  the  honor  of  telegraphing  (T.  10)  you  today, 
every  hope  of  a  peaceful  solution  seems  to  have  van- 


Germany's  Point  of  View 


ished.  This  is  the  view  of  the  diplomatic  corps.  For 
my  telegram  I  chose  the  way  via  Stockholm  by  the  Nor- 
disk  cable  as  safer  than  the  other.  This  despatch  I  am 
entrusting  to  a  private  courier,  who  will  mail  it  in 
Germany. 

With  the  assurance  of  deepest  respect,  Mr.  Secretary, 
I  am, 

(Signed)  B.  de  l'Escaille. 

The  genuineness  of  this  letter  has  apparently  not 
been  challenged  by  any  of  the  Allies;  and  the  claim 
that  Great  Britain  promised  her  support  to  France  on 
July  30,  that  is,  five  days  before  the  German  infringe- 
ment of  neutrality,  seems  to  be  borne  out*  by  a  com- 
munication in  the  Nation  (New  York)  of  August  2y 
(republished  in  the  official  German  Gazette).  It  was 
sent  by  the  London  correspondent  of  the  Nation,  Mr. 
Towse,  under  date  of  August  11,  and  claims  (i),  that 
Lord  Kitchener  had  visited  Belgium  secretly  some 
time  before  to  make  arrangements  for  an  English 
army  in  Belgium;  (2),  that  the  British  troops  in  large 
numbers  had  reached  Dover  a  week  before  the  date 
of  the  letter,  that  is,  on  August  3  or  4,  and,  (3),  that 
he  had  heard  that  one  hundred  thousand  soldiers  had 
reached  Belgium  on  August  4. 

It  is  not  claimed  here  that  either  the  account  of 
the  Nation  or  the  information  contained  in  the  Belgian 
diplomatic  letter  is  true ;  and  that  the  statements  to 
the  contrary,  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  ofBcial 
announcements  of  the  British  Government,  are  not 
true.  But  it  is  asserted  that  the  Germans  are  not 
without  excuse  if  they  believe  their  government  so 
long  as  Great  Britain's  reply  is  wanting  to  the  ques- 

*  See  also  discussion  of  British  Blue  Book,  New  York 
Times,  "  Current  History  of  the  European  War,"  Vol.  I, 
No.  3,  p.  438  ff. 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?        9 

tions :  Why  was  she  wilHng  to  protect  Belgian  neu- 
traHty  against  French  and  Prussian  infringement  aHke 
in  1870,  and  why  was  she  not  wilHng  to  do  so  in 
1914?  And  further,  why  do  her  public  men  misrep- 
resent the  facts  of  1870  as  Lloyd  George  did  in  the 
speech  quoted  above? 

As  regards  the  German  belief  that  France  had 
planned  making  her  attack  through  Belgium,  it  is 
based  on  such  a  long  sequence  of  events,  and  on  so 
many  public  expressions  of  her  statesmen  and  pub- 
licists from  Thiers  down,  who  said  that  *'the  valley 
of  the  Meuse  is  the  proper  road  open  for  France  in 
an  attack  against  North  Germany,''  that  anyone  ac- 
quainted with  French  political  writings  will  agree  that 
this  fear  was  not  without  some  basis  of  probability.* 

Belgian  hostility,  however,  is  of  a  more  recent  day, 
for  in  the  nineties  most  Belgians  feared  France.  It 
was  even  said  that  a  secret  treaty  existed  between 
King  Leopold  11  and  the  German  Emperor  by  which 
Belgium  was  to  open  her  fortresses  to  the  German 
troops  in  the  event  of  a  war  with  France.  All  this 
has  been  changed  in  recent  years,  partly  no  doubt  by 
the  rapid  growth  of  German  control  over  the  com- 
merce of  the  country,  partly  possibly  also  by  those 
traits  of  the  German  character  which  were  formed 
when  Germany  was  a  cluster  of  insignificant  inland 
states  and  which  we  have  not  yet  entirely  outgrown. 
But  whatever  was  the  cause  of  this  hostility,  every 
visitor  to  Belgium  in  recent  years  has  felt  it.  It 
showed  itself  in  an  unusual  way  during  the  last  inter- 

*  For  French  plan  of  campaign,  see  North  German  Gazette, 
Sept.  30,  1914;  and  for  documents  found  on  the  Secretary  of 
the  British  Legation  in  Brussels,  see  New  York  Times, 
April  4,  1915. 


lo  Germany's  Point  of  View 

national  exhibition  in  Brussels.  The  German  com- 
missioner, who  was  well  aware  of  this  animosity, 
worked  especially  hard,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  was 
the  only  one  who  had  his  exhibition  ready  on  the 
opening  day  of  the  exposition.  With  somewhat  mixed 
feelings,  therefore,  he  read  the  official  account  next 
day  in  U Independence  Beige,  which  said  that  the  Ger- 
mans had  opened  their  exhibit  avec  une  precision 
brutale.  There  are  not  a  few  Germans  who,  in  view 
of  Mr.  Gladstone's  statements  in  Parliament  and  the 
special  treaties  of  1870,  claim  that  the  treaty  of  1839 
contains  no  "enforceable  obligations,''  and  who  wish 
that  the  Chancellor  had  said  so.  But  since  he  did  not 
say  so,  his  attitude  apparently  was  that  Germany 
would  gladly  have  respected  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty  of  1839,  although  they  were,  according  to 
Mr.  Gladstone  himself,  of  doubtful  validity,  and  en- 
tered Belgium  only  in  self-defence  when  the  peril  of 
the  nation  seemed  to  demand  this  step. 

None  of  these  considerations,  however,  will  carry 
much  weight  so  long  as  the  now  famous  "  a  scrap  of 
paper"  quotation  seems  to  characterize  the  German 
attitude  toward  international  treaties.  Yet  strange 
as  it  may  seem,  these  words  imputed  to  the  Chancellor 
are  as  little  known  in  Germany  as  the  Chancellor's 
speech  in  the  Reichstag  discussing  the  Belgian  affair  is 
known  here.  No  greater  contrast  is  possible  than 
exists  between  the  flippancy  which  compares  a  treaty 
to  "a  scrap  of  paper,"  and  the  deep  seriousness  and 
honest  regret  at  having  been  forced,  in  self-defence, 
to  violate  a  treaty  of  neutrality,  which  characterizes 
the  Chancellor's  speech.  It  was  this  speech  which 
swept  away  the  old  class  and  party  distinctions  and 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?      ii 

brought  about  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  Reichstag. 
It  is  on  the  strength  of  this  speech  that  Germany 
has  risen  like  one  man  in  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Let  no  man  think  that  Germany  would,  or 
ever  could,  follow  "a  scrap  of  paper"  chancellor. 

The  true  history  of  this  phrase  may  perhaps  never 
be  told.  Sir  Edward  Goschen  is  quoted  as  having 
reported  it  from  his  interview  with  the  Chancellor. 
According  to  this  report  the  Chancellor  was  then 
deeply  moved,  almost  unnerved  at  seeing  his  British 
friendly  policy  wrecked,  and  Germany  menaced  by 
three  powerful  and  several  minor  foes.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  he  does  not  remember  exactly  what  he 
said.  Following  a  German  custom,  which  in  moments 
of  excitement  expresses  itself  in  disconnected  words, 
the  Chancellor  may  have  dropped  a  phrase  which  Sir 
Edward  Goschen  thought  he  was  justified  in  trans- 
lating as  he  did. 

One  other  fact  is  also  little  known.  The  Chan- 
cellor had  delivered  his  speech  and  received  an  ovation 
in  the  Reichstag  such  as  even  Bismarck  had  never 
received,  several  hours  before  his  interview  with  the 
British  ambassador.  The  British  inquiry,  in  fact, 
whether  Germany  would  respect  Belgian  neutrality, 
which  led  to  the  declaration  of  war  on  Germany,  was 
presented  to  the  German  Government  after  the  Chan- 
cellor had  announced  in  the  Reichstag  that  Germany 
had  already  been  obliged  to  enter  Belgium.  To  a 
German  it  appears  incredible  that  the  Chancellor  with 
the  enthusiastic  approval  of  his  fellowmen  still  ring- 
ing in  his  ears  at  the  noble  dignity  of  his  address, 
should  have  meant  to  say  to  Sir  Edward  Goschen  any- 
thing so  flippant  as  the  phrase  "a  scrap  of  paper" 


12  Germany's  Point  of  Viezv 

implies.  And  when  the  curtain  has  dropped  on  the 
present  tragedy,  and  more  people  see  the  German 
Chancellor,  von  Bethmann-Hollweg,  as  the  Germans 
see  him,  a  man  of  deep  and  serious  thought,  it  will 
appear  to  many  that  Great  Britain  made  a  mistake  in 
publishing  this  private  conversation.  Together  Sir 
Edward  Goschen  and  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  had  la- 
bored to  improve  the  British-German  relations.  They 
had  failed.  The  Chancellor  saw,  open  before  him,  the 
near  future:  streams  of  blood  flowing,  young  men 
dying,  sorrow  and  want,  hatred  sown  between  two 
nations  who  should  be  friends,  and  both  countries 
tottering  on  the  brink  of  ruin.  Would  it  not  have 
been  charitable  to  draw  the  veil  of  secrecy  over  the 
words  which  at  that  moment  fell  from  his  lips  in  the 
presence  of  none  but  the  one  man  who  had  been  his 
friend  in  a  common  labor?  Is  it,  moreover,  credible 
that  the  other  was  so  unmoved  by  the  Chancellor's 
grief  and  the  rupture  of  the  relations  between  Great 
Britain  and  Germany  that  he  could  be  sure  of  the 
exact  words  used  in  this  conversation? 

This  explains  why  Germans  would  give  little  cre- 
dence to  the  "scrap  of  paper"  quotation,  even  if  they 
heard  it.  It  is  the  noble  dignity  of  the  speech  they 
remember,  and  the  generous  offers  Germany  made 
and   Great   Britain    felt   obliged  to   refuse. 

These  offers  (British  Blue  Book,  No.  123)  are  little 
known  in  America,  and  yet  their  acceptance  would 
have  been  of  untold  benefit  to  the  United  States  and 
the  whole  world.  Germany  offered  to  respect  Belgian 
neutrality  and  to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  France  and 
her  colonies.  If  Sir  Edward  Grey  had  placed  this 
offer  before  the  British  Cabinet,  or  had  mentioned  it 


Did  England  Want  a  Neutral  Belgium?      13 

to  the  Prime  Minister,  or  even  had  reported  it  to  Par- 
Hament,  the  European  war  might  have  been  avoided. 
Pie  did  none  of  these  things,  but  on  his  own  responsi- 
biHty  refused  to  consider  the  offer.  For  a  full  dis- 
cussion of  this  incident  see  Dr.  F.  C.  Conybeare's 
letter  in  the  Vital  Issue  of  April  17,  1915. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    GERMAN    CONSTITUTION 

THE  October  number  of  the  National  Geographic 
Magazine  closes  an  illustrated  article  on  Ger- 
many with  a  brief  reference  to  the  constitution  of  the 
country.  At  least  this  is  the  impression  which  the 
general  reader  receives,  for  he  does  not  distinguish 
between  Germany  and  Prussia.  The  electoral  system, 
however,  described  in  the  magazine  is  that  of  Prus- 
sia, while  Germany,  like  America,  enjoys  manhood 
suffrage.  This  mistake  is  often  made,  and  occurred 
also  a  few  years  ago  when  the  Manchu  dynasty  in 
China  decided  to  yield  to  the  reform  party  and  to 
introduce  a  semi-constitutional  system  of  government. 
They  sent  a  commission  to  Europe  to  study  the  work- 
ings of  the  several  constitutions,  and  after  an  exhaust- 
ive investigation  recommended  that  the  new  Chinese 
constitution  be  modeled  after  that  of  Germany.  What 
was  meant,  however,  was  not  the  constitution  of  the 
German  Empire,  but  that  of  the  kingdom  of  Prussia, 
and  most  especially  the  Prussian  suffrage,  with  its 
division  of  the  people  into  three  numerically  unequal 
classes,  which  nevertheless  cast  an  equal  number  of 
votes.  The  joke  was  that  a  reform  intended  to  ad- 
vance freedom  should  be  based  on  a  constitution  which 
even  in  Germany  is  considered  reactionary. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  antiquated  constitu- 
tion of  Prussia  has  done  the  Germans  much  harm 

14 


The  German  Constitution  15 

in  the  world  at  large.  It  has  been  often  quoted  in 
connection  with  Germany,  and  people  have  received 
from  it  the  idea  that  the  Germans  are  suffering  from 
the  inability  of  enforcing  their  will  because  they  are 
living  under  an  illiberal  constitution.  Nothing  is 
farther  from  the  truth.  The  German  constitution 
of  1871  is  a  liberal  document,  based  on  universal 
suffrage. 

It  lacks  the  lucidity  and  beauty  of  diction  and  the 
simplicity  of  thought  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  for  it  is  somewhat  in  the  nature  of  a  com- 
promise between  opposing  conceptions  of  statecraft. 
Withal  it  is  solidly  built  on  the  foundation  of  every 
liberal  government  —  universal  suffrage.  And  for  this 
the  Germans  are  indebted  to  the  insistence  of 
Bismarck. 

The  legislative  power  of  Gerrrtany,  which  is  a  con- 
federation of  twenty-odd  states,  is  vested  in  the 
Reichstag  and  the  Bundesrat,  that  is,  the  Council  of 
the  Confederation.  Bills  that  have  received  a  ma- 
jority of  the  votes  cast  in  each  house  are  to  be  pro- 
mulgated as  law  by  the  Emperor,  who  has  no  power 
of  veto. 

The  Reichstag  is  by  all  odds  the  most  important 
factor  of  the  Legislature  of  the  confederation  known 
as  the  German  Empire.  It  is  elected  by  universal 
manhood  suffrage  "  in  a  general  election  and  by  direct 
secret  ballot"  (Article  20).  In  it  the  union  of  Ger- 
many has  found  its  most  complete  expression,  and, 
according  to  Article  2^,  every  member  is  bound  to  re- 
gard himself  as  the  representative  of  the  people  as  a 
whole  and  not  only  of  his  immediate  constituents. 
In  pursuance  of  this  conception  every  German  is  en- 


1 6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

titled  to  vote  at  the  parliamentary  elections  in  any 
place  in  which  he  happens  to  reside.  A  citizen  of 
Saxony,  for  instance,  who  is  spending  the  season  in 
Munich,  Bavaria,  may  cast  his  vote  there,  and  a 
Bavarian  visiting  in  Berlin  is  entitled  to  cast  his  bal- 
lot in  Berlin.  No  other  provision  probably  could  have 
brought  home  to  the  Germans  the  idea  of  national 
union  so  forcibly  as  this  obliteration  of  narrowly 
defined  State  lines. 

In  the  elections  the  constitution  and  the  special 
laws  provided  by  Article  20  recognize  only  absolute 
majorities.  If  no  candidate  receives  a  majority  of 
the  votes  cast  in  a  district  the  voters  proceed  to  an- 
other ballot,  which  is  a  continuation  of  the  previous 
one  and  therefore  necessitates  no  new  election  machin- 
ery. At  this  supplementary  ballot  only  the  two 
candidates  who  had  previously  received  the  largest 
number  of  votes  are  eligible.  If  there  is  a  tie,  the 
election  is  decided  by  lot,  drawn  by  the  chairman 
of  the  election  commissioners,  in  the  presence  of  the 
other  members. 

Finally  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  candidate 
need  not  be  a  resident  of  the  district  in  which  he 
offers  himself  for  election.  If  the  majority  of  the 
voters  anywhere  believe  that  there  is  no  specially 
qualified  man  in  their  district  they  can  vote  for  any 
German,  wherever  he  may  reside,  who  satisfies  their 
requirements.  This  provision  has  done  much  to  raise 
the  general  tone  of  the  Reichstag,  and  has  enabled 
country  districts  to  send  strong  representatives  to 
Parliament. 

The  powers  of  the  Legislature  are  determined  by 
Article  4  of  the  constitution.    They  are  practically  the 


The  German  Constitution  17 

same  as  those  granted  to  Congress  by  Article  i,  Sec- 
tion 8  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
most  important  of  these  powers  have  to  do  with  the 
laying  of  taxes,  duties  and  the  like,  with  the  legisla- 
tion concerning  their  collection  and  the  regulation  of 
commerce  (Congress  can  control  interstate  com- 
merce only)  ;  further,  with  the  coinage  and  issue  of 
loans  on  the  credit  of  the  country,  and  with  the  right 
of  citizenship,  naturalization  and  absolute  freedom  of 
action  of  the  individual  citizen  beyond  his  obedience 
owed  to  existing  laws.  In  several  cases  the  powers  of 
the  Reichstag  and  the  Bundesrat  are  broader  than 
those  of  Congress,  for  they  have  charge  not  only  of 
the  post  offices  and  post  roads,  but  also  of  telegraph 
affairs,  railways,  and  canals,  and,  in  addition,  of  the 
'*  Police  Regulations  as  to  Medical  and  Veterinary 
Matters  "  in  all  the  states  of  the  confederation.  Instead 
of  merely  having  the  power  of  Congress  "  to  constitute 
tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court,"  the  German 
Reichstag  and  Bundesrat  are  charged  with  passing 
"uniform  legislation  as  to  the  whole  domain  of  civil 
and  criminal  law,  including  legal  procedure."  They 
have  acted  according  to  this  paragraph,  and  today 
Germany  enjoys  a  uniformity  of  legal  procedure  in 
every  one  of  its  twenty-six  states  which  is  the  surest 
pledge  of  justice  to  all  the  citizens. 

Congress  has  the  power  ''  to  provide  for  calling  forth 
the  militia,"  but  since  this  is  distinctly  an  executive 
function,  it  has  not  been  granted  to  the  German  Leg- 
islature. For  the  same  reason  probably  the  power  to 
declare  war,  which  the  American  Congress  enjoys,  is 
by  the  German  constitution  given  to  the  President  of 
the  Confederation,  who  has  "  the  title  of  German  Em- 


1 8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

peror''  (Article  2).  It  is,  however,  stipulated  that 
''  for  a  declaration  of  war  in  the  name  of  the  Empire, 
the  consent  of  the  Federal  Council  shall  be  required, 
except  in  the  case  of  an  attack  upon  the  territory  of 
the  Confederation  or  its  coasts/'     (Article  2.) 

In  the  case  of  the  present  war,  however,  the  German 
Emperor  did  not  only  ask  for  the  consent  of  the  Fed- 
eral Council  (Bundesrat),  but  consulted  with  all  the 
leaders  of  the  Reichstag.  This  accounts  for  the  una- 
nimity of  the  Reichstag  in  voting  for  the  necessary 
appropriations.  In  practice,  therefore,  the  principles 
of  the  American  Constitution  were  followed,  and 
this  will  probably  always  be  the  case;  for,  while  thie 
Emperor  and  the  Bundesrat  jointly  may  declare 
war,  they  cannot  carry  it  on  without  the  consent 
of  the  Reichstag,  which  holds  the  purse  strings  of 
the  empire. 

When  the  new  German  empire  was  founded  in  1871 
two  somewhat  contradictory  ideas  were  guiding  the 
people.  The  first  was  the  desire  for  union  and  democ- 
racy, and  this  found  its  expression  in  the  Reichstag 
and  its  very  liberal  constitution;  the  second  was  the 
fear  lest  Prussia,  which  was  far  more  powerful  than 
the  other  states,  gain  such  strength  that  the  smaller 
political  entities  might  disappear.  The  American  Con- 
stitution contains  checks  and  balances  lest  one  depart- 
ment encroach  on  the  other.  Some  of  the  f ramers  of 
the  German  constitution  wished  to  avoid  an  encroach- 
ment by  Prussia,  while  the  latter  did  not  wish  to  be 
obliterated  as  a  power  in  the  Confederation.  The 
resulting  compromise  was  made  in  the  Bundesrat. 
This  may  be  called  the  upper  chamber.  Its  members 
are  not  elected  by  popular  vote,  but  appointed  by  the 


The  German  Constitution  19 

several  states.  Each  state,  even  the  smallest,  has  at 
least  one  vote.  There  are  sixty-one  votes  altogether 
(including  three  of  Alsace-Lorraine),  and  of  these 
Prussia,  together  with  Hanover,  the  electorate  of 
Hesse,  Holstein,  Nassau  and  Frankfort,  which  it  con- 
trols, has  seventeen  votes. 

The  appointments  are,  of  course,  made  by  the  sev- 
eral governments,  and  reflect  the  advance  in  liberal 
ideas  or  the  control  of  reactionary  forces  that  happen 
to  be  at  work  in  different  parts  of  Germany.  Three 
of  the  states  of  the  German  Confederation  are  repub- 
lics, the  others  are  monarchies.  There  is,  however, 
nothing  in  the  German  constitution  that  would  prevent 
any  of  the  states  from  changing  its  form  of  govern- 
ment to  a  republic,  if  it  chose  to  do  so.  The  people, 
however,  appear  to  be  generally  satisfied  with  their 
present  governments.  In  Mecklenburg,  for  instance, 
which  is  largely  an  agricultural  state,  the  grand  duke 
has  for  years  been  desirous  of  giving  the  people  a 
more  liberal  constitution,  but  has  been  unable  to 
overcome  the  resistance  of  the  Diet  as  at  present 
constituted. 

The  Bundesrat  itself,  then,  is  an  absolutely  unique 
institution  in  that  it  is  composed  of  representatives 
of  a  great  variety  of  governments.  Its  functions  are 
equally  unique,  and  Bismarck  once  described  them  as 
follows : 

It  is  not  Baron  von  Friesen  who  is  voting  in  the  Bun- 
desrat, but  the  kingdom  of  Saxony.  He  votes  as  the 
kingdom  instructs.  Saxony's  vote,  therefore,  represents 
the  careful  thought  of  all  the  forces  that  enter  into  the 
public  life  of  Saxony.  In  this  vote  you  have  the  diagonal, 
so  to  speak,  of  all  the  forces  at  work  in  Saxony  and  in- 
strumental in  the  formation  of  its  government.     It  is  the 


20  Germany's  Point  of  Viezv 

vote  of  the  Crown  modified  by  the  strong  influence  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people  before  whom  the  Saxon 
Cabinet  of  ministers  must  defend  the  votes  which  they 
instruct  their  delegates  to  cast  in  the  Bundesrat. 

The  presidency  of  the  Confederation  of  German 
States  is  intrusted  to  the  king  of  Prussia,  who  is  given 
the  title  of  German  Emperor,  but  w^hose  powers  are 
less  than  the  powers,  for  instance,  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  for  he  has  no  veto  over  any  laws 
passed  by  a  majority  of  both  legislative  houses. 

While  the  President  of  the  United  States  needs  only 
the  consent  of  the  Senate  to  conclude  treaties  with 
foreign  Powers,  the  German  Emperor  is  dependent 
on  the  consent  of  both  houses  according  to  Article  2;j, 

So  far  as  treaties  with  foreign  countries  refer  to  mat- 
ters which  .  .  .  are  to  be  regulated  by  imperial  legisla- 
tion. The  consent  of  the  Bundesrat  shall  be  required  for 
their  conclusion,  and  the  approval  of  the  Reichstag  shall 
be  necessary  to  render  them  valid. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  is  the  com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  whole  army  and  navy,  but  the 
Emperor  is  commander-in-chief  of  all  the  troops  only 
in  times  of  war.  In  peace,  Bavaria,  for  instance,  is 
entirely  independent.  The  President  draws  a  salary 
and  has  an  official  residence  and  perquisites.  The 
Emperor,  as  the  President  of  the  Confederated  States, 
receives  no  salary  in  whatever  shape.  He  does,  how- 
ever, receive  a  salary  as  king  of  Prussia  from  that 
state. 

In  the  appointment  of  officers  the  Emperor  has 
greater  powers  than  the  President,  because  he  is  bound 
by  the  consent  of  the  Bundesrat  in  comparatively  few 
instances. 


The  German  Constitution  21 

His  duties  are  practically  the  same  as  those  of  the 
President,  for  both  are  the  executive  officers  of  their 
respective  countries.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the 
Emperor  is  not  a  monarch  so  far  as  Germany  is  con- 
cerned, but  merely  the  President  of  the  Confederated 
German  States.  *'  German  Emperor  "  is,  as  the  consti- 
tution explicitly  states,  merely  a  title,  but  the  nice 
distinction  between  the  title  "'  German  Emperor  "  and 
the  former  "  Emperor  of  Germany,"  who  was  the  mon- 
arch of  the  old  empire,  is  often  overlooked.  If  it 
had  not  been  for  the  historical  associations  it  is  quite 
conceivable  that  the  title  '*  German  Emperor''  would 
not  have  been  bestowed  in  1871  on  the  President  of 
the  Confederated  German  States. 

The  new  empire  was  not  the  result  of  a  revolution 
or  even  a  general  dissatisfaction  of  the  people  with 
their  forms  of  government.  On  the  contrary,  they 
had  never  been  more  contented.  It  was  merely  the 
result  of  their  intense  desire  to  forge  the  outward 
bond  of  union  within  which  they  would  be  able  to 
live  in  peace  and  to  achieve  progress.  The  earlier 
attempts  at  founding  an  empire  had  failed,  notably 
in  1848,  because  the  leaders  of  the  movement  had 
tried  to  obliterate  state  lines,  and  had  offered  the 
crown  of  an  emperor  of  Germany  to  the  king  of 
Prussia,  at  the  expense  of  all  his  fellow  German  sover- 
eigns. The  predecessor  of  Emperor  William  i  had  it 
in  his  power  to  become  the  real  monarch  of  Germany, 
but  he  spurned  it,  because  it  would  have  meant  the 
annihilation  of  all  the  other  states,  and  the  Germans 
as  a  whole  were  then  as  unwilling  to  see  this  happen 
as  the  Americans  today  would  resent  the  attempt  of 
doing  away  with  all  state  governments,  and  throwing 


22  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  combined  powers  of  these  governments  into  the 
hands  of  one  man  —  the  President.  This  unwilUng- 
ness  of  Frederick  William  iv  to  be  the  gainer  at  the 
expense  of  all  the  other  German  kings  and  princes  is 
a  notable  instance  of  unselfishness,  characteristic  of 
the  Hohenzollern  princes,  although  it  is  not  often 
remembered.  Equally  unnoticed  today  are  the  sacri- 
fices which  all  the  princes  brought  on  the  altar  of 
national  unity  in  1871.  Take  William  i,  king  of  Prus- 
sia, loved  by  his  people  and  borne  along  by  a  wave  of 
success.  In  his  own  state  he  was  almost  an  absolute 
monarch,  and  while  there  was  a  Diet  his  word  was 
very  nearly  law.  All  this  he  renounced,  and  con- 
sented, for  the  sake  of  national  unity,  not  only  to  the 
extensive  powers  over  his  country,  which  passed  from 
him  to  the  Reichstag  and  Bundesrat,  but  also  to  uni- 
versal suffrage  for  the  Reichstag  itself.  Bismarck 
once  said  that  nobody  had  sacrificed  so  much  for  the 
union  of  Germany  as  his  royal  master.  This  is  abso- 
lutely true,  although  all  the  other  German  princes  fol- 
lowed his  lead  and  proved,  what  people  who  do 
not  know  them  often  doubt,  that  the  welfare  of 
the  Fatherland  is  dearer  to  them  than  personal 
power. 

Foreigners  see  only  the  arrogant  side  of  monarchial 
institutions,  and  do  not  know  the  confidence  which  the 
Germans  have  in  most  of  their  princes.  The  writer's 
views  may  be  somewhat  influenced  by  American  ideas, 
but  it  seems  not  incredible  to  him  that  a  German  prince 
should  at  some  future  time  assist  in  the  formation  of  a 
republic,  if  this  form  of  government  should  appeal  to 
him  and  the  people  to  be  in  their  interest.  Today 
most  Germans  do  not  think  that  it  would  be.     They 


The  German  Constitution  2^ 

have  studied,  often  very  carefully,  the  workings  of 
bona  fide  democracies  in  other  countries,  and,  consid- 
ering their  own  peculiar  conditions,  do  not  believe 
that  such  a  form  of  government  would  meet  their 
needs  so  well  as  their  present  federation  of  states 
with  its  liberal  constitution,  and  a  Reichstag  elected 
by  universal  suffrage. 

Perhaps  it  is  the  bitter  lesson  of  centuries  of  humili- 
ation which  has  taught  the  Germans  the  lesson  that 
they  need  a  strong  state,  and  has  made  them  willing 
to  subordinate  many  of  their  personal  wishes  to  the 
needs  of  the  state.  But  this  voluntary  acceptance  of 
the  seeming  rigors  of  public  order  has  quickened 
rather  than  blunted  their  ideals  of  individual  freedom. 
The  state,  they  agree,  must  be  strong,  but  nowhere 
else  do  they  suffer  even  the  semblance  of  autocratic 
powers.  In  their  universities  and  colleges,  for  in- 
stance, familiar  to  large  numbers  of  Americans,  there 
is  a  spirit  of  democracy  and  a  system  of  self-govern- 
ment such  as  is  found  nowhere  else.  The  idea  of  a 
small  self -perpetuating  company  of  men  headed  by  a 
president  governing  the  destinies  of  a  university  seems 
very  strange  to  the  Germans.  The  German  faculties 
elect  each  year,  from  their  own  number,  an  executive 
officer,  the  rector,  but  the  faculty  itself  retains  full 
control  of  the  affairs  of  the  university.  If  a  vacancy 
occurs,  the  faculty  prepares  a  brief  list  of  professors, 
one  of  whom  is  then  chosen  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

It  is  the  same  in  every  sphere  of  life;  for  the 
German  ideals  of  personal  liberty,  on  which  even 
Tacitus  of  old  remarked,  have  remained  the  lode  star 
of  the  German  people.  Just  as  a  young  American 
gladly  subordinates  his  will  to  that  of  the  captain  of 


24  Germany's  Point  of  View 

his  football  team,  without  losing  his  sense  of  democ- 
racy, just  so  also  the  Germans  have  been  willing  to 
put  up  with  the  occasional  inconveniences  of  a  strong 
government  without  losing  in  the  least  their  love  of 
personal  freedom. 

This  is  not  the  picture  generally  drawn  of  the  Ger- 
mans, for  although  they  have  been  variously  described, 
they  are  generally  pictured  as  too  great  admirers  of 
authority.  Some  people  have  really  misunderstood 
them ;  others,  however,  have  perhaps  intentionally  sent 
somewhat  colored  accounts  to  America.  It  should 
never  be  forgotten  that  even  in  times  of  peace  nine- 
tenths,  or  even  more,  of  the  German  news  comes 
across  the  ocean  via  London.  And  in  times  of  war, 
of  course,  when  the  German  cables  are  cut,  no  news 
except  an  occasional  item,  via  wireless  to  Sayville, 
reaches  this  country.  Not  everybody  realizes  what 
this  means.  Occasionally,  however,  even  the  British 
censor  nods.  The  following  passage  is  taken  from  a 
longer  cable  in  which  Sir  Stanley  Buckmaster,  director 
of  the  official  Press  Bureau,  announced,  under  date 
of  October  i6,  that  he  would  hereafter  not  add  any- 
thing, to  the  messages  of  American  correspondents  — 
he  has  apparently  been  in  the  habit  of  doing  this  —  and 
then  the  cable  ends  with  this  magnanimous  statement : 
*'  The  press  bureau  is  willing,"  said  Sir  Stanley,  "  to 
permit  the  readers  of  American  newspapers  to  have 
the  same  basis  for  opinion  as  the  readers  of  the  Lon- 
don papers."  Americans  should  ponder  this  statement. 

The  following  literal  translation  of  the  official  Ger- 
man announcement  of  September  lo  and  the  English 
version  which  was  cabled  to  America  may  illustrate 
what  is  done  by  Sir  Stanley : 


The  German  Constitution 


25 


LITERAL  TRANSLATION 

(September   10.) 

The  army  east  of  Paris 
pursuing  the  enemy  to  and 
across  the  Marne  was  at- 
tacked by  superior  numbers 
in  the  direction  from  Paris 
and  between  Meaux  and 
Montmirail. 

It  kept  its  ground  in  se- 
vere battles  lasting  two 
days,  and  even  made  some 
progress.  When  the  ap- 
proach of  new  and  numer- 
ous hostile  troops  was  an- 
nounced, the  wing  was  or- 
dered back.  The  enemy 
did  not  follow  anywhere. 

As  a  booty  of  victory 
fifty  guns  and  several  thou- 
sand prisoners  have  been 
reported  to  date. 

[There  follow  a  few  par-      prisoners, 
agraphs  concerning  the 
other    theatres   of    war 
which  are  correctly  trans- 
lated.] 

(Signed)  General  Quarter- 
master von  Stein. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  English  version  completely 
changes  the  wording  of  the  last  sentence  of  the  second 
paragraph,  and  thereby  turns  the  booty  mentioned  in 
the  third  paragraph  over  to  the  Allies,  when  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  it  was  the  Germans  who  captured  the  guns 
and  the  prisoners.  The  point  here  is  not  that  the 
German  and  the  British  version  of  a  battle  do  not 
agree,  but  that  the  British  version  claims  to  be  a 
translation  of  the  German  official  announcement.  The 
discrepancies  in  the  two  translations  are  probably  due 


ENGLISH    VERSION 

(September  11.) 
General  von  Stein  an- 
nounced that  the  German 
Army  which  had  advanced 
across  the  Marne  to  the 
east  of  Paris  was  heavily 
attacked  by  the  enemy  be- 
tween Paris,  Meaux  and 
Montmirail.  The  fighting 
lasted  two  days.  The  Ger- 
man Army  had  checked  the 
enemy  and  had  even  itself 
advanced,  but  stronger  hos- 
tile columns  came  to  the  as- 
sistance of  the  Allies,  and 
the  enemy  won  the  battle, 
compelling  the  German 
troops  to  retire. 

Fifty  guns  were  captured 
by  the  Allies  and  some 
thousands    of    men    made 


26  Germany's  Point  of  View 

to  Sir  Stanley's  policy  announced  in  the  cable  men- 
tioned above :  ''  Official  reports  from  Germany  will 
be  permitted  to  go  through  to  America  unchanged, 
unless  they  seem  to  reflect  unfairly  and  untruthfully 
on  the  Allies  other  than  English." 

All  these  official  German  reports  are  concise  state- 
ments of  facts  of  battles  and  maneuvers,  and  Sir  Stan- 
ley apparently  considers  most  references  to  German 
victories  an  unfair  and  untruthful  reflection  on  the 
Allies.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  such  meager 
notices  of  the  two  tremendous  victories  over  the  Rus- 
sian troops  in  East  Prussia  have  reached  America, 
and  that  therefore  the  figures  sent  by  wireless  from 
Germany  appeared  incredible. 

If  the  English  censor  feels  at  liberty  to  alter  official 
reports  of  facts,  how  much  more  likely  is  he  to  sup- 
press some  news  which  might  speak  favorably  of  the 
German  troops  and  to  permit  the  manufacture  of 
other  items! 

In  times  like  these  everybody  feels  more  strongly 
the  ties  of  sympathy  which  bind  him  to  the  homeland 
across  the  water,  whether  his  ancestors  left  there 
generations  ago  or  whether  he  came  to  America  but 
recently,  and  nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  he 
should  feel  strongly  with  those  w^ho  are  today  risking 
their  all  and  giving  their  lives  for  their  country. 
Bitterness,  therefore,  is  apt  to  steal  also  into  his  heart, 
even  if  he  has  not  to  scan  each  new  casualty  list  with 
troubled  heart  for  the  name  of  a  relative  or  a  friend, 
and  lays  it  down  with  a  word  of  prayer  when  these 
dear  names  are  not  yet  mentioned  there. 

This  bitterness  will  be  the  stronger  the  less  a  man 
understands  the  point  of  view  of  those  whose  sym- 


The  German  Constitution  27 

pathies  are  with  the  other  side.  It  is  my  purpose  to 
present  that  point  of  view  which  has  become  less  well 
known  than  the  other,  but  no  word  will  be  penned 
with  the  thought  of  altering  the  sympathies  of  any- 
one, for  the  more  deeply  a  man  believes  in  the  justice 
of  a  cause  the  more  ready  he  is  to  respect  the  sanctity 
of  the  thoughts  of  others. 


CHAPTER  III 

Germany's  conduct  of  the  war 

LORD  SELBORNE,  member  of  a  former  British 
'  Government,  has  pubHcly  made  a  suggestion 
which  meets  with  the  unconditional  approval  of  all 
sympathizers  of  the  German  cause.  He  has  written 
to  the  London  Times,  under  date  of  September  15, 
as  follows: 

Sir  —  At  page  6  of  your  issue  of  today  (September  12), 
I  read  in  a  letter  to  the  son  of  a  London  vicar  from  an 
officer  serving  with  the  army  in  France  [here  follows 
the  mention  of  some  unspeakably  harrowing  atrocities]. 
Permit  me  to  say  that  such  statements  as  these  cannot 
possibly  be  allowed  to  rest  on  anonymous  authority.  The 
civiHzed  world  has  the  right  to  demand  that  names  and 
full  particulars  shall  be  given. 

Either  these  statements  are  untrue  or  they  are  true.  If 
they  are  untrue,  I  am  sure  that  you,  sir,  would  most  deeply 
regret  having  given  publicity  to  them  in  any  form,  and 
would  feel  that  our  righteous  cause  was  grievously  in- 
jured by  such  a  libel  on  the  German  army. 

But  if  they  are  true,  then  God  and  man  will  judge. 

Would  it  not  be  possible  for  trained  lawyers  or  judges 
belonging  to  a  neutral  nation  like  the  Netherlands  or  the 
United  States  to  conduct  a  sworn  inquiry  into  such  cases 
as  are  already  open  to  investigation  ?  There  must  be  many 
such  among  the  Belgian  refugees  in  England  and  in  the 
parts  of  Belgium  not  occupied  by  the  German  troops. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Selborne. 

In  an  editorial  of  the  same  date  the  Times  said  that 
"a  question  was  asked  yesterday  in  Parliament  about 

28 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  29 

these  charges,  and  the  Prime  Minister  said  in  reply 
that  the  Secretary  of  State  for  War  had  received  no 
official  information  about  them."  The  Times  also 
joined  Lord  Selborne  in  urging  a  judicial  investiga- 
tion.* At  present  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
charges  of  wholesale  atrocities  suffered  by  the  Bel- 
gians are  believed  by  very  many  people  not  only  among 
the  Allies,  but  also  among  the  neutral  peoples  of  the 
v^orld,  while  similar  charges  against  the  Belgians 
have  received  currency  in  Germany.  In  this  con- 
nection the  following  letter  from  the  Prior  of  Aachen, 
published  in  the  official  German  Gazette  of  October 
2,  is  interesting: 

The  editors  of  the  Cologne  Gazette  sent  me  this  request 
on  September  26.  ^'Wishing  to  investigate  individual 
cases  of  atrocities,  we  take  the  liberty  of  asking  you  for 
information.  Several  ladies  employed  in  the  main  rail- 
way station  of  Cologne  have  been  told,  with  the  assurance 
of  accuracy,  that  there  was  one  big  room  in  a  hospital 
in  Aachen  filled  with  wounded  soldiers,  everyone  of  whom 
had  been  blinded  in  Belgium.  Is  your  worship  in  a  posi- 
tion to  send  accurate  information  on  this  score?  It  is, 
we  suppose,  possible  that  some  soldiers  may  be  in  Aachen 
who  have  suffered  such  a  fate,  because  Mr.  Kiittner,  privy 
counsellor  in  Breslau,  mentions  seven  wretches  thus  mal- 
treated in  his  pamphlet  called  "A  photographic  document 
of  the  bestiality  of  our  enemies.'^ 

My  reply,  which  I  desire  to  have  published,  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Every  lover  of  truth  and  every  good  patriot  will 
welcome  the  attempts  of  securing  documentary  evidence 
in  all  cases  of  cruelty  charged  to  our  enemies.  Nobody, 
however,  can  any  longer  doubt  that  a  psychic  epidemic 
has  developed  these  last  days,  and  that  it  may  have,  and 

*  The  official  British  Commission  has  since  reported  that 
not  a  single  authenticated  case  of  an  atrocity  committed  by 
the  Germans  has  been  discovered.  See  New  York  World, 
Jan.  28,  1915.  See  also  the  Labor  Leader,  March  18,  1915,  and 
for  a  refutation  of  Professor  Bedier's  book,  the  Boston  Post, 
April  25,  1915. 


30  Germany's  Point  of  View 

already  has  had,  very  regrettable  results.  Those  of  us 
who  are  living  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  great 
war  events  of  the  west  are  the  best  witnesses  of  the  fact 
that  entirely  unfounded  and  most  grewsome  stories  have 
gone  from  mouth  to  mouth  —  even  among  our  soldiers.  It 
has  become  common  to  generalize  on  the  strength  of  in- 
dividual cases,  and  at  times  an  uncouth  fancy  delights 
in  the  wildest  vagaries  of  auto-suggestion.  I,  for  instance, 
know  of  a  wounded  soldier  here  who  told  people  he  had 
been  present  at  the  execution  of  the  monks  of  Louvain 
who  had  murdered  in  their  cellars  many  German  soldiers. 
When  he  was  told  point  blank  that  the  whole  story  of 
the  monks  of  Louvain  was  a  fib,  he  grew  embarrassed 
and  gave  evasive  replies. 

"  I  was,  therefore,  not  at  all  astonished  to  hear  your 
story  of  the  '  room  in  Aachen '  in  which  the  blinded  sol- 
diers were  said  to  be  taken  care  of.  Nothing  of  this  kind 
astonishes  me,  however  deeply  I  regret  the  nonchalance 
with  which  people  tell  and  repeat  stories  which  must 
excite  not  only  all  our  people  but  also  our  soldiers.  One 
man  tells  a  story,  because  it  was  told  to  him  as  "  abso- 
lutely true,"  and  the  next  man  repeats  it  as  honestly 
vouched  for.  ...  It  is  unpardonable  for  anybody  in 
these  excited  times  to  spread  rumors  without  having  un- 
controvertible proofs  of  their  accuracy  in  his  possession. 
The  Government  has  very  properly  threatened  to  prose- 
cute everybody  who  spreads  a  false  report  of  an  alarming 
nature.     I  wish  such  prosecutions  would  begin  at  once. 

"As  to  the  rumor  concerning  which  you  wrote  me,  I 
have  communicated  with  the  proper  officials.  This  is 
the  report  of  the  surgeon  in  charge  of  one  of  the  hos- 
pitals. He  is  an  oculist,  and  that  is  why  I  addressed 
myself  to  him  among  others.     He  writes : 

**  *  There  is  no  room  in  any  of  the  hospitals  of  Aachen 
filled  with  wounded  soldiers  who  have  been  blinded.  So 
far  as  I  know  there  are  no  such  cases  in  Aachen.' " 

(Signed)  D.  Kaufmann^  Prior. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  letter  that  the  danger  of 
believing  unauthenticated  stories  of  cruelties  is  not 
confined  to  any  one  country,  and  that  the  German 
Government  has  decided  to  take  vigorous  measures  to 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  31 

arrest  the  unpardonable  repetition  of  alarming  rumors. 
Peace  will  come  again  some  time,  and  then  the  peoples 
of  this  world  will  have  to  live  together  as  the  mem- 
bers of  one  large  family.  There  will  be  many  unfor- 
tunate scores  to  settle;  why  shouldn't  we,  therefore, 
guard  against  forming  additional  and  erroneous 
sources  of  animosity? 

There  are  a  few  apparently  authenticated  instances 
of  atrocities  suffered  by  the  German  troops.  Some 
were  mentioned  by  the  chancellor  in  his  interview  to 
the  Associated  Press  of  September  2,  and  others  have 
been  published  from  time  to  time  by  the  general  staff, 
who  have  in  each  case  given  the  full  names  and  ranks 
of  the  officers  making  the  reports.  In  addition  there 
is  a  fairly  long  list  of  German  residents  of  Belgium 
who  disappeared  in  the  first  days  of  the  war,  and  who 
are  believed  to  have  been  murdered. 

In  view  of  all  this,  Lord  Selborne's  investigation 
ought  to  be  somewhat  broadened,  especially  if  it 
should  be  possible  to  persuade  a  committee  of  well- 
trained  lawyers  or  judges  from  Holland  and  the  United 
States  to  undertake  this  task  in  the  interest  of 
humanity.  This  committee  should  sift  all  obtainable 
evidence  on  these  several  points : 

1.  Were  German  residents  in  Belgium  murdered  in 
the  first  days  of  the  war? 

2.  Are  the  accounts  of  Belgian  and  Russian  atroci- 
ties, as  officially  published  in  Germany,  based  on  unim- 
peachable evidence? 

3.  Are  the  stories  of  atrocities  attributed  to  the  Ger- 
man soldiers  and  reported  all  over  the  world  true? 

4.  Were   the   reprisals   which   the   German   troops 


32  Germany's  Point  of  View 

acknowledge  warranted  by  the  laws  of  warfare  on  land 
agreed  upon  at  the  second  Hague  Conference? 

5.  If  these  reprisals  were  warranted,  was  their 
execution  conducted  with  the  maximum  of  forbear- 
ance possible  under  the  conditions,  or  were  the  Ger- 
mans guilty  of  unnecessary  harshness? 

The  writer  is  well  aware  of  the  difficulties  hi  the 
way  of  agreeing  on  the  appointment  of  such  a  com- 
mission, but  since  Great  Britain  is  somewhat  com- 
mitted to  it  on  principle  owing  to  Lord  Selborne's 
letter,  and  since  Germany  fully  realizes  the  most 
unfortunate  effect  of  the  further  circulation  of  anony- 
mous stories,  and  since  America  is  eager  to  know  the 
truth,  there  should  be  a  will ;  and  where  there  is  a  will 
there  is  a  way. 

On  her  part  Germany  has  already  begun  a  judicial 
investigation  of  the  burning  of  the  hundred  and  fifty 
houses  of  Louvain,  for  Justice  Ivers,  of  Berlin,  has 
been  appointed  to  secure  sworn  evidence.  However 
impartial  Justice  Ivers  may  wish  to  be,  he  cannot  help 
appearing  prejudiced  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  This 
appointment,  nevertheless,  was  the  best  that  could  be 
done  under  the  circumstances,  and,  being  on  the  spot 
early,  he  may  at  least  secure  the  names  of  witnesses 
that  another  altogether  impartial  commission  may  wish 
to  hear.  The  first  results  of  his  investigation  were 
published  in  the  official  Gazette  of  September  26,  to 
the  effect  that 


on  the  evening  of  August  25  two  rockets,  first  a  red  and 
then  a  green  one,  were  fired  irom  two  houses  on  the  Rue 
de  la  Station  facing  the  railway  station.  As  soon  as 
the  balls  of  fire  from  these  rockets  appeared  above  the 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  33 

station,  a  hail  of  bullets  from  the  upper  windows  of  the 
houses  on  this  street  and  partly  also  from  the  roofs,  fell 
on  the  German  troops. 

In  a  later  number  of  the  Gazette  the  story  of  the 
burning  of  the  library  is  given.  It  seems  that  dwelling 
houses  had  been  built  close  to  it  on  either  side,  and 
that,  unfortunately,  no  official  of  the  university  was 
present  to  warn  the  soldiers  of  the  treasures  hidden 
in  the  building,  which  nobody  recognized  as  the  library. 
Throughout  the  burned  district  houses  are  standing 
unharmed,  still  bearing  the  hastily  scrawled  legend: 
*'  Spare  this  house ;  it  is  inhabited  by  good  people." 
Documents  found  in  the  office  of  the  commandant 
prove,  according  to  the  official  Gazette  of  Septem- 
ber 5,  that  the  franc-tireur  attack  had  been  planned 
systematically. 

In  this  connection  an  interview  with  the  Vice  Rector 
of  Lou  vain  University,  Monseignor  Dr.  Coenrads,  is 
interesting : 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  fire  on  the  Ger- 
man soldiers  was  terrific.  C'etait  une  fusillade  bien 
nourrie.  One  can  easily  distinguish  between  the  shots 
from  German  and  Belgian  guns.  What  I  heard,  at  least 
for  five  minutes,  were  no  German  shots.  But  let  me  tell 
you  the  story  so  far  as  I  myself  lived  through  it.  I  was 
one  of  the  hostages  of  the  place.  We  changed  places 
several  times,  and  had  to  be  at  the  City  Hall  twenty-four 
hours  each,  from  three  in  the  afternoon  to  the  same  hour 
on  the  next  day.  The  first  turn  was  that  of  the  mayor 
and  the  rector  of  the  university.  Tuesday  the  lot 
picked  me. 

At  three  o^clock  I  cheerfully  took  my  place.  Toward 
evening  suddenly  the  shooting  began  of  which  I  have 
already  spoken.  Those  were  no  regular  troops,  for  there 
were  no  Belgian  soldiers  left  in  town.  We  grew  stiff  with 
horror.  A  general  told  us  that  there  was  obviously  a 
conspiracy  at  work,   that  he  would  have  to  take  severe 


34  Germany's  Point  of  View 

counter  measures,  and  would  have  to  levy  a  punitive  con- 
tribution. 

The  same  evening  v^e  walked  dov/n  the  Rue  dc  la  Sta- 
tion to  advise  the  people  for  God's  sake  to  remain  calm. 
Pastor  Dillon  spoke  in  Flemish  to  the  people,  and  Senator 
Orban  de  Xivry,  the  former  Belgian  minister  in  Rou- 
mania,  who  had  joined  us,  spoke  to  them  in  French.  Then 
we  returned  to  the  City  Hall,  and  retired  for  the  night. 

Next  morning  I  accompanied  the  officer  downstairs, 
where  they  were  drawing  up  a  proclamation  which  we 
were  to  read  to  the  people.  It  said,  in  effect :  "  We  are 
hostages.  If  another  shot  is  fired  we  shall  be  executed, 
the  city  will  be  punished,  and  a  contribution  of  twenty 
million  marks  will  be  demanded." 

With  this  proclamation  we  went  through  the  streets 
of  the  city,  reading  it  at  forty  or  fifty  different  places. 
At  the  corner  of  the  Rue  Frederic  Lints  we  are  reading 
it  again,  I  do  not  know  for  the  how  maniest  time,  when  — 
what  do  I  hear?  By  God  Almighty!  the  people  are 
shooting  again ! 

In  spite  of  this  renewed  outbreak,  however,  no  harm 
was  done  to  Dr.  Coenrads. 

Not  all  towns  made  the  franc-tireur  attacks  on  the 
Germans  which  characterized  the  inhabitants  of  Lou- 
vain,  and  Florenville  even  sent  the  following  note  of 
thanks  to  the  commanding  officer  of  the  German 
troops : 

Florenville,  September  12,  1914. 

Mr.  Commandant  —  Before  your  departure  we  desire  to 
express  to  you,  in  our  own  name  and  in  that  of  the  whole 
populace,  our  sincere  thanks  for  the  protection  you  have 
given  us  in  these  days  which  were  so  hard  for  us. 

The  geniality  of  your  character  and  your  politeness, 
which  was  in  evidence  in  your  dealings  with  every  one 
of  us,  have  almost  made  us  forget  that  we  were  living 
under  foreign  rule. 

We  hope  that  your  successor  will  follow  in  your  foot- 
steps. 

On  our  part,  Mr.  Commandant,  we  assure  you  that  no 
unfriendly  act  against  your  Government  and  your  troops 
will  be  willfully  committed. 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  35 

The  document  is  signed  by  the  city  clerk  and  the 
council,  in  the  name  of  the  burgomaster.  The  names 
are:    Jacob,  Simeon,  Joannes,  A.  and  Eug.  Bradfer. 

A  similar  document  of  thanks  from  Braine-le-Comte 
was  published  in  the  Gazette  of  September  13. 

Very  fortunately,  these  are  not  the  only  peaceful 
spots  left  in  Belgium,  which  has  had  to  suffer  much. 
The  very  fact  that  an  army  of  almost  one  million  men 
passed  through  it  in  constant  fights  and  forced 
marches,  while  another  numerous  army  contested,  in 
courageous  battles,  every  inch  of  ground,  tells  its  story, 
let  alone  the  occasional  reprisals.  So  many  Americans 
have  spent  happy  weeks  in  Belgium  that  they  may  be 
glad  to  hear  Dr.  Helffrich's  official  account  in  the 
Gazette  of  the  present  state  of  the  little  country: 

The  devastations  of  the  war,  as  we  see  them  when 
we  cross  the  German-Belgian  frontier,  are  heart  rending. 
A  few  places  are  completely  destroyed,  because  the  battles 
were  raging  there,  or  because  murderous  assaults  were 
made  on  our  soldiers  after  the  places  had  been  peacefully 
surrendered.  The  little  town  Battice,  for  instance,  was 
burned  because  when  it  had  surrendered  and  the  troops 
had  entered  and  the  burgomaster  had  offered  an  address 
of  welcome,  he  suddenly  drew  a  pistol  and  shot  the  leader 
of  the  troops.  This  shot  was  the  signal  for  a  furious  can- 
nonade on  our  troops  from  all  the  windows.  A  very  few 
other  small  places  near  the  frontier  met  with  the  same 
fate,  while  the  large  industrial  city,  Verviers,  by  contrast, 
is  absolutely  intact.  Of  all  the  huge  factories  there  not 
one  has  been  even  damaged. 

In  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Liege  the  same  pic- 
ture is  seen.  Wherever  the  battles  raged  fiercely,  espe- 
cially near  the  forts,  the  houses  are  shot  down  or  burned. 
The  suburbs  also  are  in  part  badly  scarred,  but  only  where 
our  soldiers  were  fired  on  from  doors  and  windows.  ^  Liege 
itself  shows  but  few  ruins.  A  few  houses  opposite  the 
university  are  shot  down,  because  our  soldiers  were  shot 
at  from  there — ^,it  is  said  by  Russian  students  —  after  the 


36  Germany's  Point  of  View 

surrender  of  the  city.  The  finest  bridge  of  Liege  has 
been  dynamited,  but  not  by  us,  no,  by  the  Belgians.  Two 
pontoon  bridges,  which  we  built  soon  after  taking  the  town, 
show  how  foolish  the  destruction  of  the  original  bridge 
had  been.  Unfortunately,  the  same  unnecessary  destruc- 
tion of  bridges  occurs  in  several  other  places.  The  big 
factories  have  remained  unharmed  also  here,  notably  the 
huge  iron  and  machine  works  of  Seraing. 

Between  Liege  and  Tirlemont,  where  our  troops 
advanced  in  a  broad  front,  the  country  offers  on  the 
whole  a  peaceful  picture,  as  if  no  hostile  soldier  had  ever 
put  foot  here.  The  surroundings  of  Tirlemont  to  be  sure, 
where  the  well-known  battle  was  fought,  are  dotted  with 
burned-out  houses  —  but  on  the  fields  over  which  our  cav- 
alry made  its  thundering  way,  the  sheaves  of  grain  have 
remained  to  this  day.  Nowhere  one  receives  the  impres- 
sion as  if  our  troops  had  wrought  needless  destruction. 
Tirlemont  itself,  a  city  of  17,000  inhabitants,  which  sur- 
rendered peacefully,  and  where  no  excesses  took  place, 
is  absolutely  unharmed. 

Shortly  before  Louvain  the  horrors  begin.  There  we 
enter  the  country  where  the  franc-tireurs  raged  most 
furiously  and  drove  our  soldiers  to  take  severe  counter 
measures.  Much  has  been  said  about  Louvain  itself;  it 
is,  therefore,  sufficient  to  state  that  only  that  part  of  the 
town  was  burned  where  the  most  murderous  assaults  and 
continued  street  fights  occurred.  When  the  fire  threat- 
ned  to  spread,  our  soldiers  fought  it  valiantly  and  saved 
much. 

The  country  betwen  Louvain  and  Brussels,  where  the 
magnificent  royal  residence,  Tervueren,  and  the  Congo 
Museum  are  situated,  offers  an  idyllic  picture  of  peace. 
No  house,  no  tree,  no  shrub  has  been  touched.  Our  troops 
have  passed  here  and  have  left  no  trace,  not  even  such 
as  are  to  be  expected  after  a  peaceful  maneuver. 

Brussels  surrendered  peacefully,  and  to  date  (Septem- 
ber 20)  no  revolt  against  the  army  of  occupation  has 
taken  place  there.  In  consequence  no  harm  has  come  to 
anyone.  Private  property  has  been  scrupulously  respected ; 
and  all  requisitions  and  individual  purchases  by  the  soldiers 
are  paid  for  in  cash. 

On  the  road  from  Brussels  to  Namur  the  aspect  of  the 
country  is  again  thoroughly  peaceful.  Li  Woevre,  to  be 
sure,   a   few   houses   near   the   market   place   have  been 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  37 

levelled,  because  also  from  them  treacherous  attack  had 
been  made  on  our  soldiers.  In  the  fields  the  farmers  are 
at  work  finishing  gathering  the  harvest.  The  cattle  are 
placidly  grazing  on  the  endless  green  meadows. 

The  surroundings  of  Namur  offer  the  same  picture  we 
saw  between  the  forts  of  Liege.  The  villages  between  the 
forts  have  been  largely  destroyed,  and  this  was  done,  as 
one  can  see  from  the  course  taken  by  the  cannon  balls, 
largely  by  the  Belgian  troops  themselves  shooting  from 
the  forts.  The  fields  for  some  distance  are  trampled 
down  or  torn  up  by  bullets.  .  .  .  Namur  itself  has  suf- 
fered little,  except  that  here  as  in  so  many  places  a  few 
houses  near  the  market  place  are  destroyed  as  having 
been  the  starting  point  of  sudden  and  vicious  franc-tireur 
attacks. 

Between  Namur  and  Charleroi  some  villages  have  suf- 
fered a  good  deal,  for  here  the  Belgians  and  French  de- 
fended themselves  against  the  German  advance.  The  great 
industrial  valley  of  Charleroi  is  practically  intact. 

From  Charleroi-Sambre  onward  there  are  but  few  traces 
of  the  war.  In  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Maubeuge, 
however,  within  the  range  of  the  big  guns  there  are  more 
ruins  to  be  seen.  But  the  large  towns  of  this  region  have 
remained  practically  intact. 

In  the  valley  of  the  Meuse,  Dinant  is  completely  de- 
stroyed. The  cause  was  that  after  the  town  had  been 
peacefully  surrendered,  and  our  troops  had  been  there 
several  days,  they  were  suddenly,  most  treacherously,  at- 
tacked from  everywhere.  Further  down  the  Meuse  the 
many  bridges  dynamited  by  the  French  and  Belgians  are 
the  only  evidences  of  war.  Between  Namur  and  Liege 
only  the  city  of  Ardenne  has  suffered.  Our  troops  had 
been  here  several  days.  As  they  were  leaving  and  the 
last  columns  were  passing  the  bridge  over  the  Meuse  they 
were  most  murderouslv  fired  at  from  the  houses  on  either 
side  of  the  river.  The  whole  division  faced  about  and  a 
fierce  fight  ensued  in  the  streets,  during  which  many 
houses  were  ruined. 

Most  of  the  other  cities  and  towns  in  the  thickly  popu- 
lated valley  of  the  Meuse  give  no  evidence  of  war.  Even 
Huy,  a  fortified  place,  which  offered  some  resistance,  is 
completely  preserved.  The  large  road  from  Liege  across 
the  Ardennes  to  Arlon  offers  the  same  picture  but  for 
the  devastation  wrought'  by  the  Belgians  themselves,*  who 


38  Germany's  Point  of  View 

cut  very  many  of  the  beautiful  old  trees  and  placed  them 
across  the  road  in  their  attempt  at  retarding  the  Ger- 
man advance. 

The  whole  impression  is  that  our  troops  have  ruined 
nothing  except  where  the  stern  necessity  of  fighting  re- 
quired it,  or  where  the  conduct  of  the  inhabitants  forced 
stern  measures  upon  them.  In  many  places  it  is  evident 
that  our  troops  distinctly  tried  to  restrict  the  damage  to 
as  narrow  a  field  as  possible,  and  saved  what  could  be 
saved. 

The  result  of  this  behavior  is  that  the  productive  powers 
of  the  country  have  suffered  not  nearly  so  severely  as 
one  might  have  expected.  A  ruined  factory  is  an  excep- 
tion. There  are  no  burnt  fields.  Where  the  battles  have 
been  raging,  sheaves  can  still  be  seen.  The  hedges  which 
separate  the  several  fields  have  been  only  cut  where  it 
was  absolutely  necessary.  Cattle,  pigs  and  horses  are 
largely  preserved,  for  they  were  neither  scattered  nor 
killed  by  our  troops. 

The  factories  it  is  true  stand  idle  today,  with  few 
exceptions,  while  the  workingmen  with  their  wives  and 
children  are  sitting  in  front  of  their  houses,  resignedly 
folding  their  hands  in  their  laps. 

One  of  the  chief  tasks  of  the  newly  appointed  governor 
general  will  be  to  infuse  life  again  in  the  industrial  activ- 
ities of  the  country.  In  this  he  will  be  assisted  by  the 
discipline  of  our  troops,  who  were  tempted  neither  by  the 
exultation  of  victory  nor  by  any  thirst  for  vengeance  to 
destroy  for  the  love  of  destruction,  and  who  showed  great 
moderation  even  in  their  defense  against  most  treacherous 
attacks. 

Although  this  picture  reveals  less  gloom  than  most 
Americans  have  been  led  to  expect,  it  is  exceedingly 
sad.  The  Emperor  has  said  his  heart  was  bleeding  for 
Louvain,  and  he  has  been  caricatured  as  an  arch- 
hypocrite.  For  this  reason,  perhaps,  fewer  sympa- 
thizers of  the  German  cause  have  publicly  expressed 
their  great  sorrow  at  the  fate  of  Belgium  than  would 
have  liked  to  do  so.  They  are  exceedingly  sorry  for 
the  innocent  sufferers,  while  they  have  no  sympathy 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  39 

with  the  treacherous  and  brutal  attacks  on  the  German 
soldiers ;  but  knowing  the  Germans  well,  as  outsiders 
cannot  know  them,  they  are  confident  that  an  impartial 
commission  will  be  able  to  prove  to  the  world  that  the 
Germans,  as  Dr.  Helffrich  states,  really  showed  great 
moderation.  This  will,  to  some  extent,  lessen  the  Ger- 
man grief  at  the  suffering  of  her  neighbor.  It  will, 
however,  quicken  the  world's  resentment  at  the  unwise 
action  of  the  Belgian  ministry  who  refused  the  request 
of  their  only  Socialist  member,  that  the  Government 
should  warn  the  people,  in  a  proclamation,  against 
murder  and  treachery  and  franc-tireur  attacks. 

If  it  should  be  proved,  as  every  German  prays  it 
may  be  proved,  that  the  Germans  as  such  are  not  the 
beasts  they  have  been  portrayed  to  be  in  their  dealings 
with  Belgium,  then  the  question  arises  again:  Who 
was  to  blame  for  Germany's  invasion  into  Belgium? 
More  and  more  evidence  is  becoming  available,  and 
soon  it  will  be  possible  to  place  beside  Sir  Edward 
Gray's  well  arranged  White  Paper  such  an  array  of 
facts  that  Germany  will  appear  in  a  better  light. 
Already  it  has  become  apparent  that  the  English  White 
Paper  does  not  contain  all  the  important  papers  in  the 
case.  Facts  alone,  however,  leave  the  heart  empty  and 
can  really  convince  no  one.  The  judgment  of  those, 
however,  in  whom  we  have  confidence  often  carries 
great  weight !  Houston  Chamberlain,  the  great  author, 
son  of  an  English  admiral,  and  graduate  of  a  French 
college,  is  such  a  man  in  the  eyes  of  many  people.  His 
estimate  of  the  German  people  and  of  the  Emperor  is, 
therefore,  pertinent.    He  says  : 

I  have  had  intercourse  largely  with  Germans  for  forty- 
five  years,   and  have  lived  in  German  lands  these  past 


40  Germany's  Point  of  View 

thirty  years.  My  love  of  the  German  way  of  thinking, 
of  German  science,  and  German  art,  has  quickened  my 
vision,  but  has  not  made  me  bHnd.  My  judgment  has 
remained  objective,  and  I  have  never  become  reconciled 
to  many  things  v^hich  did  not  suit  me  when  I  first  came 
to  Germany.  Since  I  was  intimately  connected  with 
France  from  childhood,  and  bound  to  England  with  ties 
of  blood,  I  was  saved  a  blind  partisanship.  It  is  true 
that  I  have  lived  a  retired  life,  refusing  to  acquire  my 
knowledge  of  the  people  and  their  country  by  going  about 
gaping  at  them.  One  sees  things  clearer  at  a  distance 
than  close  at  hand,  and  our  ears  are  more  receptive  when 
it  is  still  about  us  than  when  we  are  in  the  midst  of  a 
great  hubbub.  This  is  my  testimony:  During  the  past 
forty-three  years  not  one  man  has  lived  in  Germany  who 
has  wished  war,  not  one !  Whoever  says  the  opposite, 
lies  —  knowingly  or  unintentionally. 

I  was  fortunate  in  making  the  intimate  acquaintance 
of  German  people  in  all  parts  of  the  country  and  of  all 
walks  of  life,  from  the  Emperor  to  the  sturdy  working- 
men  with  whom  I  had  to  do,  day  in  and  day  out.  I  have 
known  intimately  teachers,  scholars,  merchants,  bankers, 
officers,  diplomats,  engineers,  poets,  journalists,  officials, 
and  artists,  but  I  have  never  found  one  eager  for  war, 
or,  more  correctly,  anxious  to  have  war.  In  England,  on 
the  other  hand,  where  I  visited  last  in  1907-8,  I  met 
everywhere  a  truly  frightful  and  blind  hatred  of  Ger- 
many, and  the  impatient  anticipation  of  a  war  of  annihila- 
tion. The  absence  of  any  animosity  against  other  people 
is  a  remarkable  characteristic  of  the  Germans  —  and  of 
none  but  the  Germans.  They  rather  err  in  the  direction 
of  too  greatly  admiring  the  virtues  of  other  people.  Every 
German,  moreover,  knows  that  the  geographical  position 
of  his  country  is  such  that  in  a  war  he  stands  to  lose 
everything  and  to  gain  nothing.  How  could  a  people 
whose  industry,  commerce,  and  science  are  flourishing 
more  wonderfully  every  year  —  as  has  been  the  case  with 
the  Germans  these  forty-three  years  —  conspire  to  bring 
about  a  war  which  could  destroy  all  three? 

I  am  transgressing  the  space  allotted  me,  and  in  conse- 
quence shall  pass  many  things  and  confine  myself  today  to 
this  one  point:  Emperor  William.  He  alone  could  have 
exerted  an  individual  influence.  I  have  not  often  met  the 
Emperor,  but  always  under  most  favorable  circumstances, 


Germany's  Conduct  of  the  War  41 

when  there  was  no  ceremony,  and  we  could  exchange 
opinions  within  the  earshot  of  none.  I  have  never  re- 
peated any  of  the  monarch's  words,  not  because  he  con- 
fided his  secrets  to  me,  but  because  we  common  people 
cannot  foresee  the  possible  effect  of  a  word  on  a  man  in 
the  Emperor's  exposed  position.  I  shall  not  deviate  from 
my  rule  even  today.  I  am,  however,  surely  committing 
no  indiscretion,  when  I  say  that  two  traits  in  this  powerful 
personality  have  appeared  to  me  to  be  notable  and  to  be 
the  dominant  forces  of  his  whole  feeling,  thinking,  and 
doing :  his  deep,  unswerving  sense  of  responsibility  toward 
God,  and  —  closely  connected,  even  demanded  by  it  —  his 
energetic,  masterful,  and,  although  it  may  sound  para- 
doxical, impetuous  will  to  preserve  the  peace  of  Germany. 
Germany's  strength,  which  owes  much  to  him,  should  not 
occasion  war,  but  ~  on  the  contrary  —  force  peace  on  those 
who  wished  Germany  ill.  His  actions  all  prove  this;  for 
whenever  the  situation  grew  almost  unbearable  for  Ger- 
many during  the  past  ten  years  —  and  England  saw  to  it 
that  it  happened  often  —  he,  the  Emperor,  was  the  man 
who  forced  the  continuation  of  peace.  This  does  not 
mean  that  there  was  a  war  party  in  Germany,  for  that  is  a 
lie  of  the  Times,  but  there  were  responsible  statesmen  and 
soldiers  who  truly  said:  If  England  and  her  associates 
wish  to  have  war,  then  let  us  have  it  rather  now  than 
later.  The  Emperor,  however,  could  not  argue  thus  before 
his  God,  and  pushed  his  sword  back  into  its  scabbard. 
No  wish  —  I  am  convinced  in  my  soul  —  was  stronger 
with  William  11  than  this  one,  that  on  his  deathbed  he 
could  say  to  himself:  I  have  been  able  to  keep  an  un- 
broken peace  for  my  country;  history  will  know  me  as 
the  "  Emperor  of  Peace." 

If  God  should  give  victory  to  the  German- Austrian 
arms,  complete  and  all  pervading  victory,  as  we  all 
pray  he  may,  even  those  of  us  who  are  not  German, 
provided  we  care  more  for  the  culture  of  civilized 
humanity  than  for  national  vanity  —  then,  and  only 
then,  Europe  will  enjoy  a  hundred  years  of  peace,  and 
the  wish  of  the  great  and  good  prince,  who  has  been 
so  shamefully  betrayed  by  his  fellow-princes,  will  yet 


42  Germany's  Point  of  View 

be  fulfilled,  more  gloriously  even,  and  in  a  manner 
which  will  exonerate  Germany  in  the  face  of  many 
slanderous  falsehoods.  And  he  will  be  called  the 
"  Emperor  of  Peace "  even  more  appropriately,  for 
with  the  help  of  God  he  will  have  achieved  this  state 
of  peace  as  his  very  own  handiwork. 


CHAPTER  IV 

England's  conduct  of  the  war 

AN  article  in  the  London  Times  (November  I, 
1914)  said:  "These  Germans  of  the  past  were 
always  spoken  of  as  the  good  Germans ;  and  the  world 
admired  their  innocence  and  imposed  upon  it/'  The 
main  reason  why  Germany's  neighbors  have  latterly 
found  her  inconvenient  is  that  Germany  can  no  longer 
be  imposed  upon.  England's  offer  a  few  years  ago  to 
limit  naval  armaments  was  a  sample  of  the  kind  of 
proposal  Germany  used  to  take  at  its  face  value.  She 
now  has  learned  to  investigate  and  to  look  a  gift  horse 
in  the  mouth,  even  if  it  comes  from  England.  This  is 
what  she  found: 

While  England  was  proposing  to  Germany  a  "  naval 
holiday,"  she  was  at  the  same  time  negotiating  with 
Russia  for  a  closer  connection  of  her  own  navy  with 
that  of  Russia,  and  undoubtedly  assisted  Russia  in 
placing  her  enormous  war  and  navy  loans  in  France. 
Several  super-dreadnoughts  laid  down  in  191 1  are  now 
being  rushed  toward  completion  in  Russia.  Since 
England  for  some  years  had  been  contemplating,  as 
Germany  feared,  a  future  war  in  which  she  would  join 
France  and  Russia  against  Germany,  it  could  be  imma- 
terial to  her,  so  Germany  reasoned,  where  some  of  the 
new  ships  were  built,  so  long  as  Germany  did  not  build 
any.  The  old  "good  Germans"  of  whom  the  Times 
speaks  might  have  been  deceived;  the  wicked  people 

43 


"44  Germany's  Point  of  View 

now  living  on  the  other  side  of  the  Channel  looked  into 
the  matter  with  that  precision  which  makes  them  trou- 
blesome to  their  English  cousins,  and  said,  very 
politely :     "  No,  thank  you ! '' 

Before  the  world,  however,  England  had  scored 
again.  She  was  seen  to  be  in  favor  of  smaller  arma- 
ments, while  Germany  was  not.  So  long  as  she  kept 
her  alliances  secret,  it  was  not  possible  to  prove  her 
agreement  with  Russia.  Through  the  latter's  careless- 
ness, however,  the  substance  of  this  agreement  in  force 
between  England  and  Russia  has  at  last  been  pub- 
lished. It  appeared  in  a  Russian  newspaper,  the 
Nowoe  Zvene,  on  July  ii,  1914,  in  an  article  signed 
by  M.  Brgancaninow,  who  is  a  near  relative  of  M.  de 
Giers,  the  Russian  ambassador  in  Constantinople.  The 
article,  re-translated  from  the  official  German  Gazette 
of  October  11,  reads  in  part  as  follows: 

With  a  keen  sense  of  pleasure  we  are  enabled  to  bring 
a  news  which  possesses  so  great  an  international  impor- 
tance that  no  comments  are  needed.  We  have  been  told 
on  unimpeachable  authority  that  the  English-Russian  navy 
and  military  convention  has  been  signed  by  the  authorized 
English  official  and  Count  Benckendorff.  Centre  Admiral 
Bitty  carried  the  text  and  submitted  it.  This  is  why  he 
received  the  great  honor  of  being  chosen  to  accompany 
the  sovereign  in  person,  when  a  solemn  church  service 
was  held  in  Cherbourg  in  memory  of  the  murdered  Arch- 
duke Franz  Ferdinand.  We  are  told  that  the  convention 
is  not  only  defensive,  but  actually  contemplates  the  land- 
ing of  English  troops  in  Holland.  By  the  stipulation  of 
this  convention  the  Russian-Baltic  fleet  is  placed,  in  case 
of  war,  under  the  command  of  the  admiral  of  the  English 
fleet  whose  station  will  be,  according  to  present  plans, 
Norway.  The  purpose  of  this  is  that  this  fleet,  thanks  to 
the  friendly  neutrality  of  Denmark,  may  appear  in  the 
Baltic  waters  immediately  after,  or  more  correctly,  imme- 
diately before  the  opening  of  hostilities,  and  protect  to- 
gether  with  the  Russian  fleet  our  shores,  which  as  yet 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War,  45 

are  absolutely  defenseless.  We  have  not  often  been  in 
the  position  of  congratulating  the  Russian  Government 
on  a  success.  But  now  we  are  happy  at  being  able  to 
do  so.  The  great  and  primary  credit  belongs  to  our 
ambassador,  Count  Benckendorff,  whose  authority  and 
popularity  in  England  as  well  as  in  Russia  has  scored  this 
tremendous  success  for  the  entente.  Now  at  last,  sup- 
ported by  the  English  fleet  and  our  army,  which  is  today 
absolutely  ready,  we  can  demand  that  our  policy  of  de- 
pendence on  Berlin  cease,  this  policy  which  is  contrary 
not  only  to  our  dignity  but  also  to  our  international 
importance. 

Unless  Sir  Edward  Grey  issues  a  categorical  denial 
of  the  truth  of  this  publication,  or  himself  publishes  the 
full  text  of  the  English-Russian  navy  and  military 
convention  here  referred  to  —  neither  of  which  he  has 
apparently  done  as  yet,  for  his  explanations  in  Parlia- 
ment were  unsatisfactory  to  the  papers  even  of  his 
own  party  —  Germany  would  seem  justified  in  believ- 
ing that  the  English-Russian  negotiations  which  were 
said  to  be  in  progress  when  Mr.  Churchill  offered  a 
''  naval  holiday  "  to  Germany,  have  borne  fruit  in  the 
definite  treaty  signed  by  both  Powers  in  June  or  early 
July,  19 14.  One  may  well  ask  whether  it  was  not  the 
hold  secured  on  England  by  this  treaty  which  made 
Russia  decide  on  war  as  early  as  July  25  of  that  year, 
unless  by  diplomatic  threats  she  could  keep  Austria 
from  reestablishing  her  prestige.  This  is  proved  by 
the  despatch  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  of  July  25  (EngHsh 
Blue  Book  No  17),  in  which  it  is  stated  that  "Russia 
could  not  allow" — notice  the  word — "Austria  to 
crush  Servia  and  become  the  predominant  power  in 
the  Balkans,  and  if  she  feels  secure  of  the  support  of 
France  she  will  face  all  the  risks  of  war.'' 

Americans  who  are  friendly  to  the  Allies  may  reason 


46  Germany's  Point  of  View 

that  the  substance  of  the  English-Russian  treaty  here 
quoted  from  the  Russian  paper  carries  its  own  proof 
of  the  non-existence  of  such  a  treaty,  for  since  Eng- 
land, as  they  believe,  has  entered  the  war  against  Ger- 
many because  Germany  had  violated  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium,  it  is  not  likely  that  England  herself  only  a 
few  weeks  earlier  should  have  signed  a  convention 
which  contemplated  the  violation  of  the  neutrality  of 
Holland  and  Norway,  and  the  connivance  in  Den- 
mark's violation  of  her  own  neutrality.  The  reply  to 
those  who  reason  thus  is  twofold:  First,  won't  you 
please  join  us  in  demanding  either  the  publication  of 
the  full  text  of  the  English-Russian  agreement  referred 
to,  or  the  official  denial  of  the  existence  of  any  treaty  or 
agreement?  Secondly,  won't  you  please  explain  why 
Great  Britain  alone  of  all  the  great  Powers  refused  to 
ratify  the  Hague  Convention  of  1907,  establishing  the 
rights  and  duties  of  neutral  Powers  in  case  of  war  on 
land,  containing  the  following  articles:  "The  terri- 
tory of  neutral  Powers  is  inviolable,"  and  "  bellig- 
erents are  forbidden  to  move  troops  or  convoys  of 
either  munitions  of  war  or  supplies  across  the  terri- 
tory of  a  neutral  Power;"  since  Great  Britain  did 
not  ratify  these  sections  she  was  not  bound  by  them. 
There  was  then  in  her  case  no  reason  why  she  should 
not  do  just  what  the  Russian  publication  of  the  treaty 
asserts,  namely,  agree  under  certain  conditions  to  land 
her  troops  in  Holland.  But  if  she  should  infringe  the 
neutrality  of  Holland  without  breaking  a  law,  because 
she  had  not  ratified  it,  nobody  can  see  a  valid  excuse 
for  her  going  to  war  with  Germany  because  the  latter 
had  broken  this  law. 

The  writer  has  discussed  this  aspect  of  the  case  in 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  47 

his  reply  to  ex-Attorney  General  Beck's  article  in  the 
New  York  Times  of  Sunday,  November  i,  at  such 
length  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  here  the  argu- 
ments and  references.  Advocates  of  Germany  have 
asserted  that  Germany  had  asked  Great  Britain  before 
entering  Belgium  whether  she  would  guarantee  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium  throughout  the  present  war. 
There  is  at  present  no  official  authority  for  the  literal 
truth  of  this  statement.  The  argument,  however,  re- 
mains unaffected,  for  from  Sir  Edward  Grey's  own 
White  Paper  it  appears  that  he  did  not  oiler  thus  to 
guarantee  Belgian  neutrality.  He  was  officially  in- 
formed (Number  157  of  the  British  Blue  Book) 
that  Germany  had  *'  absolutely  unimpeachable  informa- 
tion "  that  France  was  planning  an  attack  on  Germany 
through  Belgium.  That  was  before  any  fighting  had 
taken  place,  and  Sir  Edward  Grey  could  still  have  said 
that  Great  Britain  stood  ready  to  enforce  Belgian  neu- 
trality impartially  by  concluding  treaties  with  France 
and  Germany  similar  to  those  of  1870.  He  did  not  do 
this,  nor  could  he  have  done  this,  for  it  might  —  and 
Germany  says  it  would  —  have  brought  Great  Britain 
into  conflict  with  France.  This,  however,  would  have 
laid  Great  Britain  open  to  the  charge  of  treachery 
against  one  with  whose  plans  of  war  she  had  become 
acquainted  through  negotiations  lasting  through  years, 
as  can  be  seen  from  Sir  Edward  Grey's  letter  to  the 
French  ambassador  of  November  22,  1912  (British 
Blue  Book,  105,  Annex  I). 

It  may  not  be  superfluous  to  reassert  here  that  no 
doubt  whatsoever  exists  concerning  the  sincerity  of 
the  vast  majority  of  British  subjects  who  believe  that 
they  are  at  war  with   Germany  because   the  latter 


48  Germany's  Point  of  View 

infringed  Belgian  neutrality.  Nor  should  the  sincerity 
of  the  British  ministry  be  impugned,  who  believed  that 
the  safety  of  the  empire  forced  them  to  espouse  the 
cause  of  Russia  and  France.  It  is,  however,  confi- 
dently asserted  that  the  German  troops  marching 
through  Belgium  were  not  the  cause  of  Great  Britain's 
entry  into  the  war,  but  largely  only  an  excuse.  In 
reality  Germany  did  not  infringe  Belgian  neutrality, 
for  The  Hague  Conference  had  explicitly  stated  that 
no  neutral  **  can  avail  himself  of  his  neutrality :  (a),  if 
he  commits  hostile  acts  against  a  belligerent;  (b),  if 
he  commits  acts  in  favor  of  a  belligerent.  And  Bel- 
gium has  committed  acts  in  favor  of  France.  (See 
article  in  the  Times,  November  i,  quoted  above.) 

When  this  is  understood  the  stigma  on  the  good 
name  of  Germany,  which  has  made  many  people  so 
very  bitter  against  her,  will  be  removed,  and  the  suf- 
fering of  Belgium  be  seen  to  be  one  of  the  most  ter- 
rible tragedies,  such  as  unhappily .  will  not  be  avoided 
so  long  as  the  peoples  of  this  world  do  not  strive  more 
successfully  to  understand  each  other's  point  of  view. 
This  necessitates  the  willingness  of  going  below  the 
surface.  A  thing  may  be  absolutely  true,  and  yet  in 
its  implication  glaringly  false.  The  alleged  use  of 
dum-dum  bullets  by  the  British  troops  is  a  case  in 
point. 

Below  are  given  the  affidavits  of  two  British  officers 
to  the  effect  that  their  Government  had  supplied  them 
and  others  with  dum-dum  bullets.  American  corre- 
spondents have  been  shown  such  bullets,  and  to  make 
the  case  against  Great  Britain  absolutely  sure,  it  can 
be  truthfully  stated  that  she  was  the  only  one  at  The 
Hague  Conference  who  spoke  in  favor  of  dum-dum 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  49 

bullets  in  the  sub-commission,  and  that  in  the  confer- 
ence of  all  the  delegates,  in  1899,  twenty  ayes  were 
cast  in  favor  of  forbidding  the  use  of  dum-dum  bullets, 
while  only  Great  Britain  and  America  —  for  Captain 
Crozier,  of  the  United  States,  had  come  to  the  defense 
of  the  British  delegate,  General  Ardagh  —  voted  in 
favor  of  the  continued  use  of  dum-dum  bullets.  At  the 
next  conference,  in  1907,  America  endeavored  to 
reopen  the  case  in  the  interest  of  her  British  cousins, 
but  General  Davis  was  voted  down. 

This  is  an  absolutely  truthful  account,  which  can  be 
verified  from  the  records  of  The  Hague  Conference. 
Since  most  people  connect  dum-dum  bullets  with  an 
inhuman  mode  of  warfare,  they  would,  therefore,  seem 
justified  in  believing  that  Great  Britain  was  aggres- 
sively in  favor  of  such  a  warfare,  and  certainly  in 
favor  of  the  use  of  unnecessarily  brutal  bullets.  Noth- 
ing, however,  is  further  from  the  truth,  as  appears 
from  the  speeches  by  Generals  Ardagh  and  Davis. 
The  following  extracts  are  quoted  from  The  Two 
Hague  Conferences,  by  William  I.  Hull  (the  World's 
Peace  Foundation,  Boston).  Said  General  Sir  John 
Ardagh : 

In  the  session  of  May  31,  an  article  was  accepted  by 
a  large  majority  against  the  use  of  bullets  with  a  hard 
jacket,  whose  jacket  does  not  entirely  cover  the  core  or 
has  incisions  in  it. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  use  of  these  words  describing 
technical  details  of  construction  will  result  in  making  the 
prohibition  a  little  too  general  and  absolute.  It  would  not 
seem  to  admit  of  the  exception  which  I  would  desire  to 
provide  for,  that  is,  the  present  or  future  construction 
of  some  projectile  with  shock  sufficient  to  stop  the  stricken 
soldier  and  put  him  immediately  hors  de  combat,  thus 
fulfilling  the  indispensable  conditions  of  warfare  without, 
on  the  other  hand,  causing  useless  suffering. 


50  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  completely  jacketed  bullet  of  our  Lee-Metford  rifle 
is  defective  in  this  respect.  It  has  been  proven  in  one 
of  our  petty  wars  in  India  that  a  man  perforated  five 
times  by  these  bullets  was  still  able  to  walk  a  considerable 
distance  to  an  English  hospital  to  have  his  wounds  dressed. 
It  was  proven  just  recently,  after  the  battle  of  Om-Dur- 
man,  that  the  large  majority  of  the  Dervishes  who  were 
able  to  save  themselves  by  flight  had  been  wounded  by 
small  English  bullets,  whereas  the  Remington  and  Martini 
of  the  Egyptian  army  sufficed  to  disable.  It  was  neces- 
sary to  find  some  more  efficient  means,  and  to  meet  this 
necessity  in  India  the  projectile  known  under  the  name 
of  dum-dum  was  made  in  the  arsenal  of  that  name  near 
Calcutta.  .  .  . 

It  scarcely  seems  necessary  for  me  to  assert  that  public 
opinion  in  England  would  never  sanction  the  use  of  a 
projectile  which  would  cause  useless  suffering,  and  that 
every  class  of  projectile  of  the  nature  is  condemned  in 
advance,  but  we  claim  the  right  and  we  recognize  the  duty 
of  furnishing  our  soldiers  with  a  projectile  on  whose  re- 
sult they  may  rely  —  a  projectile  which  will  arrest,  by  its 
shock,  the  charge  of  an  enemy  and  put  him  hors  de  com- 
bat immediately.  .  .  . 

General  Davis  spoke,  in  part,  as  follows : 

I  address  myself  especially  to  the  delegates  who  bear 
officers'  commissions  in  the  armies  of  the  nations  repre- 
sented here.  You  are  familiar  with  the  whistling  of  bul- 
lets, you  are  accustomed  to  the  sight  of  the  dead  and 
wounded.  We  have  regulated  the  operations  of  warfare, 
we  have  improved  the  condition  of  neutrals;  these  are 
acts  of  high  justice,  but  we  should  not  forget  the  com- 
batant officers  and  simple  soldiers  who  bear  the  burdens 
of  warfare.  I  hope  that  this  conference,  convoked  in 
the  name  of  humanity,  will  not  forget  the  lot  of  those 
who  bear  the  inevitable  losses  and  the  cruelties  of  battles. 

These  are  not  the  v^ords  of  men  v^ho  do  not  believe 
in  humane  warfare;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  the 
words  of  men  who  have  the  courage  of  speaking  in 
favor  of  an  unpopular  cause.    They  may  be  in  error, 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  51 

and  most  people  believe  they  are,  but  nothing  would  be 
less  fair  than  to  draw  harsh  conclusions  as  to  these 
two  delegates  or  the  nations  they  represented  from 
their  opposition  to  a  clause  forbidding  the  use  of 
dum-dum  bullets. 

In  so  far  as  the  present  charge  is  concerned,  that 
the  British  troops  have  been  using  such  bullets  in  the 
European  War,  two  things  should  be  remembered: 
First,  it  may  be  considered  a  general  rule  of  The 
Hague  conference  that  its  declarations  '^  shall  cease  to 
be  binding  from  the  time  when  in  a  war  between  the 
contracting  Powers  one  of  the  belligerents  is  joined  by 
a  non-contracting  Power,'*  although  this  special  clause 
is  not  added  to  all  the  declarations  of  the  conference. 
If  it  were  not  so  the  declarations  would  result  in 
unfairness,  for  a  belligerent  who  had  not  ratified  the 
convention  might  do  with  impunity  what  another  was 
forbidden  to  do.  Secondly,  in  her  wars  in  India  and 
Egypt  Great  Britain  had  to  do  with  non-contracting 
nations,  and  was,  therefore,  bound,  not  by  The  Hague 
conventions,  but  by  her  conscience.  After  reading  the 
whole  speech  of  General  Ardagh  (it  was  too  long  to 
be  quoted  here  in  its  entirety)  nobody  can  doubt  that 
her  conscience  bade  her,  in  the  interest  of  her  soldiers, 
to  use  dum-dum  bullets.  Her  arsenals  were  thus  filled 
with  this  kind  of  ammunition,  and  it  would  have  been 
a  marvel  if  none  of  them  had  been  issued  to  the  troops 
going  to  France.  In  America,  where  the  handy  publi- 
cation of  the  texts  of  the  peace  conferences  of  The 
Hague  by  the  World's  Peace  Foundation  in  Boston 
has  given  everybody  an  easy  means  of  becoming  ac- 
quainted with  The  Hague  conventions,  very  few  people 
are  familiar  with  them,  and  abroad,  where  no  such 


52  Germany's  Point  of  View 

convenient  compilations  are  said  to  exist,  even  fewer 
people  know  exactly  what  is  permitted  and  what  is 
forbidden.  It  is,  therefore,  natural  to  assume  that  a 
great  quantity  of  these  forbidden  bullets  may  have 
been  issued  to  the  troops  in  good  faith.  It  is  more 
difficult  to  believe  that  the  denial  by  the  Government 
was  equally  in  good  faith.  But  perhaps  the  denials 
were  not  official,  but  were  made  to  appear  so  in  the 
press.  Germany,  however,  cannot  be  blamed  for  tak- 
ing a  less  charitable  view  of  this  affair,  and  for  seeing 
in  these  dum-dum  bullets  another  instance  of  "per- 
fidy," for  when  one  is  fighting  for  one's  existence  one 
is  iiot  in  the  mood  for  making  allowances  for  the 
mistakes  of  one's  opponents. 

The  affidavits  of  the  two  British  officers  were  pub- 
lished in  the  official  Gazette  of  September  29.  They 
are  here  translated  from  the  German  text : 

I  received  my  pistol-ammunition  in  Plymouth.  The 
bullets  were  flattened  in  front.  Since  I  had  my  doubts 
whether  this  ammunition  was  irreproachable  from  the 
point  of  view  of  international  law,  and  since  I  was  unable 
to  obtain  definite  information  on  this  point  from  my  su- 
periors,  I  buried  this  ammunition. 

Four  days  before  the  battle  of  Mons,  where  I  had  my 
first  encounter  with  the  Germans,  I  packed  my  revolver 
in  my  heavy  baggage,  and  have  not  carried  it  since.  The 
ammunition  was  the  same  as  had  been  given  to  me  and 
the  other  officers  of  the  Gordon  Highlanders  last  June  for 
the  annual  revolver  shooting  tests. 

W.  E.  Gordon, 

Colonel  Gordon  Highlanders,  A.  D.  C.  to  the  King. 
September  19,   1914. 

Signed  in  presence  of  Baron  von  Lersner,  lieutenant  of 
Reserve  Regiment  of  Hussars  No.  7;  Baron  von  Berck- 
heim,  lieutenant  of  Reserve  Second  Regiment  of  Guard 
Dragoons. 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  53 

The  second  affidavit  reads: 

As  regards  the  revolver  ammunition,  the  bullets  sup- 
plied were  flattened  in  front.  I  first  saw  this  bullet  at 
the  annual  maneuvers  this  summer.  I  am  making  this 
summary  reply  in  writing  at  the  request  of  Baron  von 
Lersner,  and  in  answer  to  questions  he  put  to  me  orally. 

F.  H.  Neish, 

Lieutenant-colonel,    i,    Gordon    Highlanders. 
Torgau,  September  19,  1914. 

The  witnesses  were  the  same  as  to  the  affidavit  of 
Colonel  Gordon.  On  the  same  day  and  before  the 
same  witnesses,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Neish  made  an- 
other affidavit,  as  follows : 

When  I  was  captured  on  August  2y  at  three  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  I  had  only  three  pointed  revolver  bullets 
in  my  possession.  I  had  borrowed  them  from  another 
officer.  I  had  had  no  other  cartridges  flattened  in  front 
than  those  which  had  been  supplied  and  which  I  had 
buried.  I  cannot  remember  where  I  buried  them,  but  it 
was  surely  several  days  before  the  battle  of  Mons  began 
on  August  23. 

The  official  Gazette  comments  on  these  affidavits  as 
follows :  *'Such  cartridges  can  have  no  other  purpose 
than  to  occasion  very  cruel  wounds.  These  officers 
confess  that  they  themselves  doubted  whether  these 
bullets  were  permissible,  according  to  international 
law,  and  that  they  buried  them  for  that  reason.  Other 
members  of  the  English  army,  however,  have  used 
these  cartridges  in  battle,  as  is  proved  by  the  ammuni- 
tion which  has  been  found  loaded  in  captured  British 
revolvers.'' 

Two  days  earlier,  on  September  2y,  the  Gazette  pub- 
lished the  official  French  explanation  of  the  French 
dum-dum  bullets,  which  had  been  found  in  Longwy 


54  Germany's  Point  of  View 

in  original  packages,  in  large  quantities,  and  of  which 
photographs  had  been  supplied  to  the  press  of  Ger- 
many and  other  countries,  and  been  freely  printed. 
The  French  explanation  was  to  the  effect  that  the  car- 
tridges had  been  intended  for  the  target  practice  of 
the  "  societies  for  military  preparation."  Since  most 
of  these  societies  had  inadequate  stands,  they  had  to 
be  supplied  with  bullets  whose  jackets  had  been  per- 
forated. This  lessened  the  initial  speed  of  the  bullets 
and  prevented  them  from  passing  through  the  thin 
protection  behind  the  target.  The  use  of  these  bullets 
in  war  had  never  been  thought  of.  The  comment  of 
the  Gazette  on  this  explanation  is  as  follows : 

It  is  unnecessary  to  inquire  whether  these  explanations 
are  true,  for  even  if  they  are  true  they  cannot  mitigate 
the  severe  reproaches  which  must  be  made  against  the 
French  army.  The  question  whether  the  dum-dum  bullets 
of  our  enemies  were  originally  meant  for  a  harmless  pur- 
pose is  of  no  consequence,  considering  the  definitely 
proven  fact  that  they  have  been  found  in  thousands  on  the 
battlefields.  This  is  the  only  fact  which  counts.  And 
everyone  will  have  to  take  it  into  consideration,  if  he 
wishes  to  form  an  unprejudiced  judgment  on  the  point 
whether  our  enemies  are  carrying  on  this  war  in  a  way 
which  corresponds  to  the  dictates  of  humanity. 

These  are  temperate  words,  and  it  would  seem  that 
the  burden  of  the  proof  that  bullets  of  the  Longwy 
kind  were  not  used  by  the  French  army  had  been 
shifted  to  the  French  Government.  The  mere  state- 
ment that  they  had  not  been  intended  for  the  purposes 
of  war  is  insufficient  in  view  of  the  German  claim 
that  many  have  been  found  on  the  battlefields.  The 
most  charitable  view  is  that  in  France,  as  in  England, 
large  quantities  of  dum-dum  bullets  had  been  on  hand, 
in  the  one  case  for  target  practice,  in  the  other  for 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  55 

warfare  against  natives  in  India  or  Egypt,  and  that  in 
the  confusion  of  mobilization  these  bullets  had  been 
issued  to  the  troops  before  the  respective  Governments 
had  become  aware  of  their  illegal  character. 

This  whole  question,  however,  raises  an  interesting 
point  which  may  well  concern  the  next  Hague  Confer- 
ence. Let  us  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
it  is  a  fact  that  in  the  battle  of  Mons  the  Allies  used 
dum-dum  bullets,  while  the  Germans  did  not.  The 
result  would  have  been  that  in  an  attack  every  German 
soldier  who  was  hit  was  put  hors  de  combat,  if  he 
was  not  killed  outright,  while  a  soldier  of  the  Allies 
might  have  continued  on  his  way,  even  if  he  was  hit 
once  or  oftener.  This  would  have  given  a  very  unfair 
advantage  to  the  Allies.  Would  the  Germans  there- 
upon have  been  justified  in  perforating  or  flattening 
their  bullets  in  preparation  for  the  next  battle  ?  Fair- 
ness would  seem  to  say,  yes.  This,  however,  would 
only  have  induced  the  Allies  to  continue  the  use  of 
their  illegal  bullets,  and  would  have  led  —  and,  so  far 
as  this  war  is  concerned,  may  lead,  for  all  we  know  — 
to  a  complete  breakdown  of  The  Hague  declarations, 
with  the  consequent  disregard  of  its  provisions  also  by 
that  contestant  who  had  meant  to  observe  them.  But 
if  there  were  a  permanent  court  in  session,  the  inno- 
cent party  could  then  present  its  proof  at  once,  and  if 
the  other  party  continued  its  offenses,  be  specifically 
authorized  to  take  recriminatory  measures  without 
losing  its  standing  as  a  faithful  observer  of  The  Hague 
declarations. 

This,  of  course,  implies  that  men  of  such  bigness  of 
character  can  be  found  to  sit  on  this  court  that  the 
various  contestants  will  confide  in  their  sense  of  jus- 


S6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tice.  But  when  this  day  arrives  there  may  be  little 
work  to  do  for  such  a  court,  for  when  the  big  men  of 
the  nations  can  be  trusted  to  judge  all  the  nations 
fairly,  the  nations  themselves  will  have  begun  to  under- 
stand one  another,  and  the  causes  for  war  will  have 
been  lessened,  if  not  completely  removed. 

A  Latin  proverb  says :  "  In  peace  prepare  for  war." 
An  excellent  adaptation  of  this  proverb  for  modern 
times  would  be:  "In  peace  prepare  to  avoid  war.'' 
If  we  are  intemperate  in  thought  and  speech  in  times 
of  peace,  and  ready  vehemently  to  condemn  that  one 
of  the  contestants  with  whom  we  do  not  sympathize, 
and  to  do  so  largely  on  the  evidence  of  his  opponents, 
or  the  equally  intemperate  claims  of  those  who  defend 
him,  how  can  we  hope  to  acquire  a  judicious  temper? 
But  unless  we  form  the  habit  of  just  thinking,  we  shall 
become  the  playball  of  passion  when  we  ourselves  are 
placed  before  a  momentous  decision.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  habit  of  heated  speech  is  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  present  world-war,  for  it  has  kept  the 
people  of  Europe  from  understanding  each  other. 

General  von  Bernhardi  is  often  quoted  as  charac- 
teristic of  such  intemperate  speakers  in  Germany,  and 
because  of  his  book  Germany  is  condemned,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  his  writings  were  practically  unknown 
there,  that  he  was  an  officer  on  the  retired  list  when 
he  wrote  them,  and  that  he  had  never  held  an  office  in 
which  he  had  any  determining  influence  on  the  policy 
of  the  German  army.  It  has  been  forgotten  that  the 
preservation  of  peace  has  been  the  text  on  which  the 
leaders  of  Germany  have  talked  to  the  people  for  more 
years  than  compris'e  a  generation. 

It  has  also  been  forgotten  that  this  was  not  so  in 


England's  Conduct  of  the  War  57 

England,  and  that  some  of  the  most  intemperate  speak- 
ers of  recent  years  are  today  in  the  most  important 
positions.  The  present  First  Sea  Lord  of  the  Ad- 
miralty, Baron  Fisher,  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Ralph  Lane, 
writing  under  the  pseudonym  of  Norman  Angell  {The 
Great  Illusion,  page  350),  as  having  said: 

If  you  rub  it  in,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  that  you 
are  ready  for  instant  war,  with  every  unit  of  your  strength 
in  the  first  line  and  waiting  to  be  first  in,  and  hit  your 
enemy  in  the  belly,  and  kick  him  when  he  is  down,  and 
boil  your  prisoners  in  oil  (if  you  take  any)  and  torture 
his  women  and  children,  then  people  will  keep  clear  of  you. 

A  worthy  companion  piece  to  these  words  of  Ad- 
miral Fisher  is  found  in  an  article  in  the  Saturday 
Review  of  September,  1897,  where  we  read: 

If  Germany  were  extinguished  tomorrow,  the  day  after 
tomorrow,  there  is  not  an  Englishman  in  the  world  who 
would  not  be  richer.  Nations  have  fought  for  years  over 
a  city  or  a  right  of  succession.  Must  they  not  fight  for 
two  hundred  million -pounds  of  commerce? 

These  are  not  solitary  remarks.  There  are  many 
more  like  them,  uttered  by  men  in  high  position  and 
printed  in  papers  of  note.  This  is  why  Germany  does 
not  believe  that  England  went  to  war  for  Belgium  and 
why  sh^,  wonders  that  not  all  the  world  has  seen  this. 


CHAPTER  V 

JAPAN  AND  KIAU-CHAU  —  GERMANY  AND  BELGIUM 

AKINETOSCOPE  picture  in  a  local  playhouse 
recently  showed  a  review  of  British  recruits  by 
Lord  Roberts,  fine  young  fellows,  joyfully  anticipating 
the  opportunity  of  fighting  for  their  country  —  and 
the  right,  they  were  told,  was  on  their  side.  Suddenly 
there  came  into  their  bright  faces  a  look  almost  of 
exultation,  as  a  magnificent  figure,  a  man  not  overtall, 
every  inch  a  gentleman,  moved  down  the  line.  Quietly 
he  raised  his  silk  hat,  uncovering  a  beautifully  shaped 
head.  His  snowy  white  hair  shone  like  a  halo.  Here 
was  a  type  of  man  suggesting  the  perfection  of  which 
the  civilization  of  the  white  race  is  capable.  The 
recruits  broke  out  into  shouts  of  welcome,  but  Lord 
Roberts  hardly  seemed  to  hear  them.  It  was  Britannia 
who  was  whispering  to  him  her  message  of  bravely 
won  and  stoutly  kept  supremacy.  A  gentle,  absent- 
minded  smile  flitted  across  his  serious  face,  and  every- 
one who  saw  it  knew  that  Lord  Roberts  was  renewing 
in  his  heart,  and  before  his  young  and  eager  country- 
men, his  vow  of  allegiance  to  the  noblest  ideas  of  the 
race  of  which  he  is  a  splendid  specimen.  Oh,  the  pity 
of  it,  that  the  EngHsh  and  the  Germans  could  not  have 
understood  each  other  before  it  was  too  late,  before 
they  had  to  meet  on  the  battlefield  of  blood  and  hatred ! 
This  picture  of  Lord  Roberts  passing  in  review  the 
English  recruits  has  haunted  all  whp  saw  it,  and  has 

58 


Japan-Kiau-Chau;  Germany-Belgium        59 

taken  the  sting  out  of  many  an  unfriendly  thought.  It 
will  never  fade,  but  by  its  side  there  will  stand,  here- 
after, another  picture. 

It  is  9 130  in  the  morning  of  Saturday,  November  7, 
19 14,  when  a  kindly  faced  little  brown  man.  General 
Yoshimi  Yamada,  is  advancing  toward  the  smoulder- 
ing ruins  of  Tsingtau  to  receive  from  the  German 
governor,  Meyer-Waldeck,  the  surrender  of  the  place. 
By  his  side  and  in  respectful  pose  is  seen  his  subordi- 
nate, the  leader  of  the  British  forces.  Lieutenant 
Colonel  Barnadiston.  The  habitual  gentleness  of  the 
Japanese  makes  Meyer- Waldeck's  task  less  terrible, 
but  the  tragedy  of  having  been  obliged  to  surrender  to 
an  alien  race  an  outpost  of  the  civilization  of  the  white 
man  has  cut  its  traces  deep  into  his  features.  He 
addresses  himself  exclusively  to  the  Japanese  general, 
but  when  his  words  are  spoken,  he  gives  one  look  at 
Barnardiston !  And  Barnardiston  drops  his  eyes,  those 
proud  British  eyes,  which  have  been  wont  to  survey 
the  world  with  well  deserved  serenity.  One  look!  — 
Will  Barnardiston  ever  forget  it?  Will  any  Britisher 
ever  forget  it?  When  he  rises  in  Parliament  to  call 
his  people  to  a  noble  deed  in  the  service  of  the  civiliza- 
tion of  his  race,  this  look  will  strike  him  dumb.  When 
in  his  club  he  speaks  of  British  honor,  this  look  will 
mock  him.  And  when  at  home  he  tries  to  warm  his 
heart  with  his  pride  in  his  race,  this  look  will  tell  him 
that  it  was  his  people  who,  humbly  taking  their  orders 
from  the  yellow  race,  delivered  to  the  latter  what  was 
left  of  the  paradise  which  Germany  had  created  on 
the  shores  of  the  Bay  of  Kiau-chau. 

On  these  shores  there  stood,  in  1898,  a  Chinese  fish- 
ing village  of  a  few  hundred  inhabitants.    In  August, 


6o  Germany's  Point  of  View 

igi4,  a  thriving  city  had  grown  up  here,  nestled  on  the 
slopes  of  the  rugged  mountain  chains  of  Lao-chau  and 
Hung-liu-chui.  Sixteen  years  ago  these  hills  were 
largely  bare,  as  they  had  been  for  generations,  while 
last  spring  they  were  green  with  the  verdure  of  mil- 
lions of  little  trees,  planted  and  sown  there  by  German 
hands.  No  nation  loves  and  nurtures  trees  as  the 
Germans  do,  for  they  are  never  so  happy  as  when  they 
live  where  wooded  slopes  meet  broad  expanses  of 
clear  water.  A  school  of  forestry  had  been  established 
in  Tsingtau,  and  from  all  China  and  from  Japan  people 
had  come  to  learn  how  to  grow  new  forests,  and  how 
to  preserve  and  improve  what  the  mismanagement  of 
their  ancestors  had  left  to  them.  An  Alpine  club 
encouraged  mountain  climbing  and  the  preservation  of 
the  Chinese  antiquities,  often  built  on  almost  inacces- 
sible peaks,  for  the  mountains  rise  to  a  height  of  several 
thousand  feet  directly  from  the  sea. 

Four  successful  missions  were  carrying  on  their 
helpful  work,  unhampered  by  the  local  government. 
There  were  three  German  mission  schools  —  one  Cath- 
olic and  two  Protestant,  and  also  an  American  mission. 
There  was  the  large  technical  high  school,  numbering 
several  hundred  Chinese  and  European  students. 
Also,  one  special  school  for  Chinese  was  preparing 
the  natives  for  the  positions  in  the  civil  service  not 
only  of  the  protectorate,  but  also  of  the  large  railway 
leading  into  the  interior  of  the  country,  which  had  been 
built  by  a  syndicate  of  Chinese  and  German  bankers. 

A  wonderful  water  supply,  brought  from  a  distance, 
and  a  perfect  sewerage  system  had  made  Tsingtau  an 
ideal  residence  city.  Open  to  the  sea,  it  caught  the 
welcome  ocean  breaths  in  the  hot  summer  months. 


Japan-Kiau-Chau;  Germany-Belgium        6i 

while  it  was  wisely  built  where  in  winter  the  mountains 
cut  off  the  icy  northwest  winds.  Large  modern  hotels 
and  beautifully  cleaned  bathing  beaches  invited  sum- 
mer visitors,  and  year  by  year  more  Europeans  from 
Hongkong  and  other  places,  and  also  Chinese  gentle- 
men, sent  their  families  here  and  spent  their  own 
vacations  in  this  German  town. 

The  harbor,  however,  was  the  greatest  work, 
achieved  with  the  technical  perfection  of  which  only 
a  great  nation  is  capable.  Professor  Westengard,  the 
American  legal  adviser  to  the  Emperor  of  Siam,  told 
friends  only  a  few  months  ago,  before  he  left  for 
Siam,  that  Tsingtau  had  the  most  superb  quays  and 
docks  anywhere  in  the  world.  The  harbor  and  its 
approaches  were  deep  enough  for  the  biggest  ships, 
and  in  addition  there  was  a  hugh  floating  dry  dock. 
A  little  harbor  somewhat  farther  south  was  gay,  espe- 
cially in  the  summer  months,  with  the  smaller  craft. 
Innumerable  sailing  vessels  and  launches  rode  here  at 
anchor,  and  proved  that  also  the  sports  were  not  for- 
gotten in  this  place. 

The  streets  were  clean  and  well  laid  out.  Many 
trees  and  lovely  parks  gave  promise  of  the  future 
almost  fairy-like  beauty  of  the  city.  All  the  modern 
inventions  and  the  comforts  they  provide  were  to  be 
found  in  Tsingtau.  Everywhere  German  foresight 
and  thoroughness,  German  love  of  nature  and  dili- 
gence, were  in  evidence.  And,  best  of  all,  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  public  affairs  there  appeared  the  desire 
of  administering  this  protectorate  as  a  trust  for 
humanity.  Here,  at  last,  the  Germans  felt,  they  had 
the  opportunity  of  making  peaceful  and  moral  con- 
quests.    China  was  awakening  to  the  call  of  a  new 


62  Germany's  Point  of  View 

day.  This  China,  so  long  asleep,  so  big,  so  thickly 
populated  that  of  every  four  people  in  the  world  one 
is  a  Chinaman,  had  long  bought  its  guns  from  the 
Western  world,  but  now  had  begun  to  look  also  to  the 
civilization  of  the  white  people.  Here  was  Germany's 
chance  to  do  its  part,  to  transmit  some  of  the  values 
inherited  from  a  glorious  past  to  that  brother  of  the 
human  family  who,  while  in  some  respects  the  oldest, 
was  yet  in  others  the  very  youngest. 

Germany  undertook  this  task  in  Tsingtau  with  joy- 
ful eagerness.  She  knew  that  you  cannot  make  an- 
other the  sharer  of  your  best  possessions  without 
yourself  being  the  gainer  in  strength  and  inner  worth. 
She  saw  with  pride  the  city  grow  and  the  number  of 
inhabitants  pass  the  ten-thousand  mark.  She  saw 
ever  more  ships  dock  in  her  new  harbor,  new  indus- 
tries begun,  more  mountains  opened,  more  iron  ore 
brought  to  the  smelters,  more  Chinese  business  houses 
settled  here,  more  prosperity,  more  contentment,  more 
happiness  pervade  the  fifty  square  miles  of  her  new 
protectorate.  She  welcomed  every  year  more  visitors 
and  saw  them  leave  again  with  sincere  admiration 
for  the  great  civilizing  work  done  by  a  nation  who  had 
had  little  chance  heretofore  of  proving  itself  an  active 
humanizing  force  in  the  world. 

Today  the  young  trees  are  no  more.  British  and 
Japanese  guns  have  bared  the  hills.  The  city  is  de- 
stroyed. The  pupils  are  scattered,  and  the  Oriental 
world,  just' ready  to  learn  the  lesson  of  civilization  of 
the  white  man,  has  had  an  object  lesson  of  his 
destructiveness. 

All  this  and  much,  much  more  the  British  com- 
mander read  in  that  one  look  of  Governor  Meyer- 


Japan-Kiau-Chau;  Germany-Belgium        63 

Waldeck.  He  could  not  stand  it.  But  as  he  looked 
away,  his  eyes  fell  on  the  road  across  the  bay  over 
which  the  Japanese  and  his  own  troops  had  come.  It 
was  on  neutral  land,  inviolate  by  international  law. 
The  Chinese  Government  had  protested,  but  neither 
his  superior  officer,  General  Yoshimi  Yamada,  nor  he 
himself  had  heeded  it.  They  had  set  out,  in  strange 
companionship,  these  two,  to  destroy  a  paradise,  be- 
cause it  was  German,  and  had  violated  Chinese  neu- 
trality and  broken  The  Hague  Convention.  Did  the 
irony  of  it  flash  across  the  British  mind,  at  that  mo- 
ment, that  his  own  Government  had  claimed  to  be  at 
war  with  Germany  because  Germany  had  done,  in  dire 
need,  what  England  and  Japan  together  had  wilfully 
done  here? 

Nobody  can  ever  know  the  thoughts  of  Lieutenant 
Colonel  Barnardiston  under  the  lash  of  that  one  look. 
At  his  feet  he  saw  the  ruins  of  Tsingtau,  but  ere  he 
could  study  them  well,  his  superior,  the  kindly  little 
brown  man,  called  to  him,  and  with  a  "  Very  well,  sir ; 
at  your  command,  sir,"  the  British  soldier  fell  into  step 
with  General  Yoshima  Yamada  and  walked  back  with 
him  to  their  common  camp. 

In  London  another  day  will  dawn,  when  another 
company  of  recruits  will  be  waiting  for  the  field 
marshal.  Again  he  will  walk  down  the  ranks,  again 
the  shouts  from  many  British  throats  will  greet  him, 
again  he  will  lift  his  head.  But  will  he  again  hear  the 
voice  of  Britannia?  Or  will  it  be  the  voice  of  an- 
other race,  to  which  he  will  not  answer  this  time  with 
a  smile,  but  with  a  respectful,  "  Very  well,  sir;  at  your 
command,  sir''  ? 

In  view  of  this  remarkable  subordination  of  a  high 


64  Germany's  Point  of  View 

British  officer  to  the  command  of  the  Japanese  in 
Tsingtau,  one  may  well  ask  whether  the  flippant  way 
in  which  many  Englishmen  have  spoken  of  the  war 
will  not  soon  be  changed.  In  Boston  an  Englishman 
said  to  a  German  acquaintance  last  September : 

That  is  a  glorious  scrap  we  are  having  in  Europe  at 
present.  You  know  we  had  to  see  who  was  the  biggest 
fellow  in  the  old  world.  And  didn't  we  steal  a  march 
on  you  in  the  very  beginning  ?  We  made  the  world  believe 
that  you  had  broken  a  treaty  and  international  law  by 
going  into  Belgium? 

Thanks  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Robert  Bacon, 
both  of  whom  would  remove  this  question  from  the 
uncertainty  of  poplar  disapproval  by  having  the 
United  States  enter  an  official  protest  against  what 
seems  to  them  an  infraction  of  international  law  on 
the  part  of  Germany,  the  true  state  of  affairs  may  ere 
long  become  public  knowledge. 

In  so  far  as  these  gentlemen  are  endeavoring  to 
bring  this  about,  they  deserve  the  thanks  of  all  fair- 
minded  people.  It  is,  however,  very  regrettable  that 
they  have  singled  out  for  their  disapproval  only  Ger- 
many. Did  Japan  not  violate  the  same  articles  of  The 
Hague  Convention  when  she  infringed  the  neutrality 
of  China  in  order  to  attack  Tsingtau?  Why  should 
the  United  States  not  protest  against  Japan's  offense 
against  international  law?  In  so  far  as  Great  Britain 
is  concerned,  both  gentlemen  are  justified  in  not  de- 
manding a  protest,  because  Great  Britain  was  the  only 
one  of  the  great  Powers  that  did  not  ratify  the  articles 
referring  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  in  the 
warfare  on  land.  Great  Britain,  therefore,  was  at 
liberty  to  enter  neutral  territory  without  breaking  any 


Japan-KiaU'Chau;  Germany-Belgium        65 

law  that  was  binding  on  her.  She  did,  however,  ratify 
the  articles  referring  to  neutrals  in  naval  warfare,  and 
these  she  has  repeatedly  broken.  The  most  glaring 
case  was  when  the  British  cruiser  Highflyer  sank  the 
German  auxiliary  cruiser  Kaiser  Wilhelm  der  Grosse 
in  neutral  territorial  waters.*  Why  do  neither  Mr. 
Roosevelt  nor  Mr.  Bacon  deem  this  infringement  of 
international  law  worthy  of  a  protest? 

As  regards  the  case  of  Germany,  so  long  as  no 
official  protest  gives  her  the  opportunity  of  an  official 
reply,  her  defense  must  rest  with  those  who  believe  in 
her.  Fortunately,  new  material  is  coming  to  light 
every  week,  and,  sooner  or  later,  its  cumulative  weight 
may  be  so  strong  that  Germany's  case  will  appear 
established. 

Germany  claims  that  she  did  not  break  articles  one 
and  two  of  the  chapter  of  The  Hague  Convention  on 
which  Messrs.  Roosevelt  and  Bacon  would  base  the 
United  States  protest,  because  article  seven  of  the 
same  chapter  states  that  no  neutral  can  claim  the 
privileges  guaranteed  to  him  in  the  earlier  articles,  if 
he  commits,  (a),  hostile  acts  against  a  belligerent, 
(b),  acts  friendly  to  a  belligerent.  Article  seven  has 
special  reference  to  individuals,  but  if  an  individual 
can  thus  lose  his  neutrality,  how  much  more  a  state? 

The  chief  question  then  is:  Did  Belgium  lose  her 
neutrality  through  any  acts  of  her  Government?  One 
answer  to  this  is  found  when  one  compares  two  state- 
ments recently  issued  by  British  sources.  On  Octo- 
ber 12  the  London  Times  endeavored  to  defend  the 

*The  attack  on  the  German  cruiser  Dresden  in  Chilean 
waters  on  March  15,  1915,  for  which  Great  Britain  has  been 
obHged  to  apologize  to  Chile,  is  another  of  the  worst 
instances  of  international  bad  faith. 


66  Germany's  Point  of  View 

British  Government  against  the  charge  of  neghgence 
because  it  had  given  insufficient  help  to  Belgium,  and 
especially  to  Antwerp.     The  Times  says: 

The  last  and  greatest  difficulty  was  the  neutrality  which 
had  been  imposed  upon  Belgium  against  her  will.  [The 
reader  will  please  note  these  words.]  A  more  fatal  gift 
was  never  presented  to  any  State.  It  prevented  her  from 
combining  with  the  Netherlands  for  the  defence  of  their 
common  and  inseparable  interests,  and,  worse  than  that, 
it  made  it  impracticable  for  Belgium  to  enter  into  any 
conversation  or  arrangement,  military  or  other,  which 
would  insure  to  her  the  rapid  and  effective  support  of 
her  English  friends.  All  such  ideas  if  they  were  enter- 
tained—  and  England's  weakness  on  land  threw  them 
somewhat  into  the  shade  —  had  to  be  postponed  until  Bel- 
gian territory  was  violated  by  an  aggressor,  when  in  all 
human  probability  the  aid  desired  would  come  too  late. 

If  this  means  anything,  it  means  that,  according  to 
the  Times,  Belgium  could  not  enter  into  any  ''  conver- 
sation or  arrangement,  military  or  other,"  without 
breaking  her  neutrality.  Strangely  enough,  the  Ger- 
man Government  announced  at  about  the  same  time 
that  the  documents  found  in  Brussels,  but,  unfortu- 
nately for  Germany,  not  dating  later  than  1906  and 
19 12,  contained  ample  evidence  of  the  fact  that  defi- 
nite arrangements  had  been  made  between  Belgium 
and  Great  Britain.  This  news  was  given  to  the 
American  press  on  October  14  and  15  and  elicited 
from  the  British  ambassador  the  following  reply : 

No  such  agreement  has  ever  existed,  as  the  Germans 
well  know.  General  Grierson  is  dead,  and  Colonel,  now 
General  Barnardiston  [in  the  Japanese  reports  he  is  called 
lieutenant  colonel]  is  commanding  the  British  forces  be- 
fore Tsingtau.  In  1900  General  Grierson  was  on  the  gen- 
eral staff  at  the  War  Office,  and  Colonel  Barnardiston 
was  military  attache  in  Brussels.  In  view  of  the  solemn 
guarantee  given  by  Great  Britain  to  protect  the  neutrality 


Japan-Kiau-Chau;  Germany-Belgium        67 

of  Belgium  against  violation  from  any  side,  some  academic 
discussions  may,  through  the  instrumentality  of  Colonel 
Barnardiston  have  taken  place  between  General  Grierson 
and  the  Belgian  military  authorities  as  to  v^hat  assistance 
the  British  army  might  be  able  to  afford  to  bombard- 
ment should  one  of  her  neighbors  violate  that  neutrality. 
Some  notes  with  reference  to  the  subject  may  exist  in 
the  archives  at  Brussels. 

Is  this  not  a  practical  admission  by  Great  Britain 
that  she  and  Belgium  had  entered  into  a  "conversa- 
tion or  arrangement,  military  or  other  "  ?  By  so  doing, 
however,  Belgium  had  broken  her  own  neutrality,  and 
Great  Britain  had  helped  her  do  it,  according  to  the 
British  view  of  the  case  as  expressed  in  the  London 
Times  on  October  12. 

That  this  is  no  mere  sophistry  appears  from  the 
observation  that  Great  Britain  had  become  familiar 
with  the  military  secrets  of  France  through  a  series  of 
military  arrangements  worked  out  by  the  French  and 
British  general  staffs.  How  could  Great  Britain  ever 
have  given  her  help  to  Belgium  against  France  without 
laying  herself  open  to  the  charge  of  treachery? 

And  more,  Great  Britain  wishes  to  rest  the  inviola- 
bility of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  on  the  treaty  of 
1839  instead  of  on  the  articles  of  The  Hague  conven- 
tions. There  were  five  signatories  to  that  treaty, 
Great  Britain,  France,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  Austria. 
The  relations  of  these  five  Powers  towards  Belgium 
were  to  be  identical.  Did  not  Great  Britain  break  the 
spirit  of  this  treaty  by  entering  into  military  conversa- 
tions with  Belgium,  and  thus  acquainting  herself  with 
the  Belgian  military  secrets?  Suppose  some  future 
British  Government  had  invaded  Belgium,  how  could 
any  of  the  other  signatory  Powers  have  given  success- 


68  Germany's  Point  of  View 

y  ful  help  to  Belgium  against  an  enemy  who  was  in 
possession  of  her  secrets  of  defense? 

Belgian  relations  with  France  are  said  to  have  been 
even  closer.  Compelled  by  treaty  to  maintain  an  army 
and  several  fortresses,  Belgium  readily  turned  to  one 
of  the  great  military  Powers  for  her  instruction  in  the 
enormously  complicated  scientific  subject  of  modern 
ordnance.  She  happened  to  turn  to  France,  and 
French  officers,  it  is  said,  had  ready  access  to  Belgian 
fortresses.  Human  nature  would  not  be  what  it  is  if 
this  had  not  led  to  an  intimacy  between  the  French 
and  Belgians  such  as  is  incompatible  with  honest  neu- 
trality. Sir  Edward  Grey  was  informed  {Blue  Book 
No.  157)  that  Germany  had  "absolutely  unimpeach- 
able information  "  that  France  was  planning  an  attack 
through  Belgium.  He  did  not  challenge  this  evidence, 
but  went  before  Parliament  with  his  claim  that  Great 
Britain  should  join  in  the  war  against  Germany,  be- 
cause the  latter  had  violated  Belgian  neutrality. 

People  in  search  of  the  truth  should  read  again  the 
speeches  of  Sir  Edward  Grey  and  Mr.  Asquitlf  in 
Parliament  on  August  3,  4,  and  5,  and  remember  these 
several  things,  which  both*  men  knew  but  did  not 
mention  when  they  hurled  at  Germany  the  charge  of 
being  a  faithless  breaker  of  treaties  and  a  violator  of 
international  law. 

I.  The  Hague  convention  of  1907  had  regulated  the 
rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  in  war  on  land.  This  con- 
vention had  been  ratified  by  all  the  great  Powers,  except 
Great  Britain. 


*  Further  investigations  have  made  it  very  doubtful  whether 
Mr.  Asquith  was  informed  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  of  the  latter's 
relations  with  foreign  states.  Mr.  Asquith,  therefore,  may 
have  to  be  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  intellectual  dishonesty. 


Japan-Kiau-Chau;  Germany-Belgium        69 

2.  There  was  in  this  convention  an  article,  No.  7,  which 
stated  under  what  conditions  a  neutral  loses  his  rights 
as  such. 

5.  Belgium  had  entered,  to  say  the  least,  "  conversa- 
tions"  with  Great  Britain,  and  had  such  close  relations 
with  France  that  her  neutrality  was  compromised,  if  not, 
as  Germany  claims,  violated. 

4.  The  treaty  of  1839  ^^^  been  declared  of  doubtful 
validity  in  1870,  and  by  some  speakers  in  Parliament  had 
been  declared  voided  by  the  treaties  of  1870  (quoted  in 
the  Transcript,  October  14,  1914). 

5.  The  official  British  opinion  as  regards  the  very  simi- 
lar treaty  guaranteeing  the  neutrality  of  Luxemburg  was 
on  record  as  contrary  to  the  interpretation  which  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  and  Mr.  Asquith  wished  to  give  the  treaty  of 
1839. 

In  substantiation  of  the  last  two  points  the  follow- 
ing quotations  may  be  given :  From  the  discussion  on 
the  treaties  of  1870  in  the  House  of  Commons,  August 
II,  1870.     Mr.  Osborne: 

This  treaty  is  entirely  superfluous,  if  the  treaty  of  1839 
is  worth  anything  at  all.  In  the  eyes  of  Austria  and 
Russia  that  treaty  of  1839  is  entirely  superseded  by  this. 
You  have  struck  a  blow  at  that  treaty,  which  you  can 
never  put  in  the  same  position  again. 

The  next  quotation  is  from  the  London  Times  of 
December  17,  1870.  The  Times  then  was  the  official 
organ  of  the  Government.  Bismarck,  exasperated  by 
the  continuous  acts  of  Luxemburg,  amounting  to  an 
abuse  of  her  neutrality  in  favor  of  France,  had  given 
notice  to  the  signatory  Powers  who  in  1867  had  guar- 
anteed the  perpetual  neutrality  of  Luxemburg — just 
as  in  1839  they  had  guaranteed  the  neutrality  of  Bel- 
gium—  that  the  North  German  Federation  was  no 
longer  bound  to  respect  the  neutrality  of  Luxemburg. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  infringement  of  her  neutrality 


70  Germany's  Point  of  View 

took  place,  although  it  was  momentarily  expected.   The 
Times  said : 

A  very  just  distinction  was  drawn  by  one  of  our  cor- 
respondents yesterday  between  the  military  right  to  ignore 
the  neutrality  of  Luxemburg  —  if  that  neutrality  has  been 
abused  —  and  the  right  to  demand  its  eventual  annexation 
to  Germany.  The  neutrality  of  Luxemburg  is  one  thing, 
the  independence  of  Luxemburg  is  another,  and  the  for- 
mer might  be  violated  by  a  temporary  occupation  without 
permanently  compromising  the  latter.  It  is  just  possible, 
indeed,  that  exigencies  may  have  been  created  by  the  par- 
tisanship of  the  Luxemburg  authorities  which  could  not 
await  the  decision  of  a  conference. 

Those  who  read  this  should  remember  that  Germany 
promised  to  respect  the  independence  and  integrity  of 
Belgium  after  the  war  and  to  pay  for  any  damage 
done  by  the  passage  of  the  German  troops.  It  is  im- 
possible to  state  it  too  emphatically  and  too  frequently 
that  independence  and  integrity  were  the  only  things 
which  also  Sir  Edward  Grey  promised  Belgium  for 
the  future  {Blue  Book  No.  155),  and  that  he  dropped 
neutrality  from  the  British  guarantee.  This  is  very 
important,  if  one  remembers  that  Great  Britain  has 
not  ratified  The  Hague  Convention  guaranteeing  the 
inviolability  of  neutral  countries.  Great  Britain,  then, 
in  urging  Belgium  to  go  to  war,  promised  her  —  integ- 
rity and  independence  and  War.  Nor  did  she  come 
successfully  to  the  support  of  Belgium,  so  that  Sir 
Edward  Gray  has  to  defend  himself  at  present  both  at 
home  and  in  Belgium  against  the  charge  of  having 
forsaken  a  brave  ally.  Germany  promised  Belgium 
the  same  —  independence  and  integrity  and  Peace ! 

There  were,  however,  people  in  1870  just  as  there 
are  today,  who  said : 


Japan-KiaU'Chau;  Germany-Belgium        yi 

Even  if  Belgium  (then  Luxemburg)  had  forfeited  her 
rights  of  neutraHty,  no  one  of  the  signatory  Powers  had 
the  right  to  enter  her  territory  before  a  Conference  had 
authorized  such  an  invasion.  Germany  should  have  taken 
counsel  with  the  other  Powers  first. 

The  Times  of  December  i6,  1870,  however,  spoke 
as  follov^s: 

A  correspondent  suggests  that  "  the  danger  arising  from 
breaches  of  neutrality  may  under  given  circumstances  be 
far  too  serious  and  too  immediate  to  await  the  slow  result 
of  diplomatic  action/'  but  Count  Bismarck  has  deprived 
himself  of  the  benefit  of  this  plea  (by  not  entering  Luxem- 
burg at  once).  Had  there  been  imminent  danger  he  would 
not  have  reserved  the  question  of  further  action,  but  have 
at  once  occupied  the  duchy  and  have  appealed  to  the  other 
Powers  to  approve  the  step.  The  analogies  of  common 
life  illustrate  the  situation.  A  man  may  not  take  the  law 
into  his  own  hands  at  his  pleasure,  but  if  he  is  attacked 
on  the  highways  he  closes  with  his  assailant,  and  should 
an  accident  follow,  a  jury  will  return  a  verdict  of  "  justi- 
fiable homicide."  This  is  the  reasoning  practically  adopted 
by  the  ministry. 

It  will  be  noted  that  Germany  did  in  19 14  exactly 
what  the  British  ministry  of  1870  said  should  be  done 
in  such  cases;  act  first  and  explain  afterwards;  for 
the  British  ministry  reasoned  that  if  there  is  time  for 
an  explanation  beforehand,  the  action  itself  becomes 
impermissible. 

Most  interesting  expressions  of  the  official  British 
opinion  are  found  also  in  the  Times  of  December  9 
and  17,  1870.    On  the  latter  day  we  also  read: 

In  measuring  the  responsibility  which  rests  upon  our- 
selves and  others,  under  the  Luxemburg  convention,  it  is 
essential  to  emancipate  ourselves  from  purely  legal  con- 
ceptions. The  assumed  right  of  five  great  Powers  to 
exercise  a  kind  of  superintendence  over  the  minor  States 
of  Europe  is,  in  itself,  a  result  of  political  necessity.  .  .  . 


^2  Germany's  Point  of  View 

It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  we,  or  the  other  con- 
tracting States,  pledged  ourselves  in  perpetuum  never  to 
reconsider  those  reasons,  however  circumstances  might  be 
changed. 

Lest  this  opinion  appear  antiquated  and  invalid  to 
the  modern  searcher  after  truth,  the  recent  view  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  may  be  quoted  in 
substantiation.  Page  600  of  Vol.  cxxx  of  United 
States  Reports: 

But  that  circumstances  may  arise  which  would  not  only 
justify  the  Government  in  disregarding  their  stipulations 
(i.  e.,  of  treaties),  but  demand  in  the  interest  of  the  coun- 
try that  it  should  do  so,  there  can  be  no  question.  Unex- 
pected events  may  call  for  a  change  in  the  policy  of  the 
country. 

And  again  (page  602)  the  Supreme  Court  held: 

That  whilst  it  would  always  be  a  matter  of  the  utmost 
gravity  and  delicacy  to  refuse  to  execute  a  treaty,  the 
power  to  do  so  was  a  prerogative  of  which  no  nation  could 
be  deprived  without  deeply  affecting  its  independence. 

It  was  just  because  of  the  uncertainty  of  treaties 
like  that  of  1839  ^^^^  The  Hague  Conference  of  1907 
formulated  the  articles  on  neutrality,  which  all  the 
Great  Powers,  except  Great  Britain,  have  ratified. 
These  are  all  matters  which  Sir  Edward  Grey  knew, 
which  Mr.  Asquith  knew ;  and  soon  the  public  at  large 
will  also  know  them.  With  them  clearly  in  mind,  let 
a  man  read  over  again  the  speeches  by  the  two  emi- 
nent British  statesmen  which  swept  their  country,  and 
little  Belgium,  too,  into  the  war,  and  let  him  ask  him- 
self whether  the  English  gentleman  is  right  who  said, 
"  We  stole  a  march  on  Germany  by  making  the  world 
believe  that  we  entered  the  war  because  she  tried  to  go 
through  Belgium." 


CHAPTER  VI 

GERMANY  AS  A  WORLD  POWER ALSACE-LORRAINE 

PROFESSOR  A.  C.  COOLIDGE  wrote  a  book  in 
19 ID,  entitled,  America  as  a  World  Power,  which 
has  been  translated  both  into  French  and  German.  Its 
German  title  is  Die  Vereinigten  Staaten  als  Weltmacht. 
"Twenty  years  ago/*  Professor  Coolidge  says,  **the 
expression  '  World  Power '  was  unknown  in  most  lan- 
guages; today  it  is  a  political  commonplace,  bandied 
about  in  wide  discussion/'  Many  English  translators, 
however,  of  German  books  are  not  yet  familiar  with 
this  term,  rendering  the  German  Weltmacht  with 
"world  dominion,''  or  even  "domination  of  the 
world."  As  a  result,  the  legitimate  aims  of  Germany 
of  being  a  world  Power  are  presented  to  American 
readers  as  wild  aspirations  on  her  part  to  gain  domin- 
ion of  the  world.  There  is  a  wider  gulf  to  mutual 
understanding  between  the  English-speaking  and  the 
German-speaking  world  in  their  different  languages 
than  many  people  have  realized.  At  the  present  time, 
when  most  of  them  are  searching  for  accurate  infor- 
mation, such  linguistic  errors  become  apparent,  and 
most  regrettable,  because  they  tend  to  convey  very 
erroneous  impressions. 

Professor  Coolidge  defines  his  book  as  "a  study  of 
the  part  which  the  United  States  plays  in  the  great 
drama  of  world  politics,"  and  asserts  that  "complete 
equality  has  never  existed,  and  can  never  exist,  be-, 

73 


74  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tween  States  of  greatly  unequal  strength.  In  practice 
the  larger  must  tend  to  arrange  many  matters  without 
consulting  every  wish  of  their  numerous  smaller  breth- 
ren." There  are,  according  to  him,  five  world  Powers, 
taking  rank  in  the  following  order : 

1.  The  British  Empire,  "  exceeding  any  two  of  its 
rivals/'  and  extending  over  nearly  eleven  and  one-half 
million  square  miles,  with  400  million  inhabitants,  of  whom 
sixty  million  are  whites. 

2.  Russia,  extending  over  eight  and  one-half  million 
square  miles,  with  150  million  inhabitants,  of  whom  125 
million  are  whites. 

^j.  France,  extending  over  four  and  one-half  million 
square  miles,  with  ninety-five  million  inhabitants,  of  whom 
forty  million  are  whites. 

4.  The  United  States,  extending  over  almost  three  and* 
three-fourths  million  square  miles,  with  ninety-three  mil- 
lion inhabitants,  of  whom  seventy-five  million  are  whites. 

5.  Germany,  extending  only  over  one  million  square 
miles,  with  seventy-five  million  inhabitants,  of  whom  sixty 
million  are  whites. 

In  these  figures  Mr.  Coolidge  includes  the  colonial 
possessions  of  the  several  nations,  and  remarks  that 
all  the  colonial  possessions  of  Germany,  except  South- 
west Africa,  are  in  the  tropics. 

Germany  has  suspected  for  several  years,  rightly  or 
wrongly,  that  her  three  great  neighbors,  with  a  total 
extent  of  twenty- four  and  a  half  million  square  miles 
and  with  620  million  inhabitants,  were  combining 
against  her.  She  felt  justified  in  resenting  this  attempt 
of  depriving  her  of  the  right  to  "play  a  part  in  the 
great  drama  of  world  politics.''  When  German  writers 
spoke  of  Weltmacht  they  were  not  thinking  of  a 
dominion  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary,  they  wished 
to  rouse  their  fellow-countrymen  to  the  danger  that 
threatened  them,  if  a  powerful  combination  of  strong 


Germany  as  a  World  Power  75 

nations  should  regard  them  as  too  insignificant  to  be 
reckoned  among  the  world  Powers,  and  should  proceed 
to  arrange,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Coolidge,  "many 
matters  without  consulting  Germany." 

Germany  has  been  so  successful  since  187 1  that  the 
very  idea  of  relegating  her  to  a  second-rank  Power 
may  come  as  a  surprise,  especially  to  those  who  have 
only  recently  become  interested  in  world  affairs.  Mr. 
Coolidge's  figures,  however,  speak  for  themselves. 
Germany,  it  will  be  noticed,  stands  in  the  last  place, 
and  Austria  has  been  dropped  from  the  list. 

These  figures  are  eloquent  also  in  another  direction. 
If  we  pair  off  Austria  and  Turkey  against  Japan,  Bel- 
gium, and  Servia,  it  is  seen  that  Germany,  with  less 
than  100  million  inhabitants,  and  drawing  on  the 
resources  of  only  one  million  square  miles,  is  trying 
to  hold  her  own  against  more  than  600  million  people, 
drawing  their  resources  from  twenty-four  and  one-half 
milHon  square  miles.  If  one  remembers  that  Germany 
is  shut  off  from  her  colonies,  the  odds  against  her  are 
even  greater.  And  yet  there  are  those  who  would  add 
the  three  and  three-quarter  million  square  miles  and 
almost  100  million  inhabitants  of  the  United  States 
to  those  who  are  trying  to  crush  Germany ! 

No  estimate  of  the  present  European  crisis  which 
does  not  take  these  facts  into  consideration  can  be  en- 
tirely true.  Germany  may  have  given  offense  to  her 
powerful  neighbors  and  have  driven  them  to  an  alli- 
ance against  her.  She  may  have  done  so  wilfully  or 
she  may  have  done  so  unwittingly.  It  may  have  been 
she,  or  it  may  have  been  they,  who  were  more  to  blame 
for  the  mutual  misunderstanding  and  intemperate 
speech  which  has  kept  the  several  nations  of  Europe 


76  Germany's  Point  of  View 

apart.  But  is  this  a  sufficient  reason  for  transferring 
the  bitterness  of  thought  and  intemperance  of  speech 
to  another  country,  happily  at  peace  with  all  the 
contestants  ? 

It  is  the  one  great  aim  of  the  United  States  to  bring 
about,  by  the  weight  of  her  own  morality,  conditions 
of  justice  among  the  nations  of  the  world  under  which 
another  such  war  becomes  impossible.  If  the  United 
Spates,  however,  enters  the  contest  either  by  force  of 
arms  or  as  an  ardent  partisan,  and  thus  proves  that 
she,  too,  is  subject  to  the  call  to  passion,  she  loses  her 
right  of  leading  the  way  into  new  and  higher  paths  of 
international  righteousness. 

Early  last  year  civil  war  in  Ireland  seemed  immi- 
nent. Since  then  a  bigger  thought  has  taken  hold  of 
the  people  and  reconciled  their  differences.  Why 
should  not  a  similar  miracle  sweep  away  the  hatred 
and  misunderstandings  now  rending  the  whole  of 
Europe?  And  is  there  any  nation  left  but  the  United 
States  where  such  a  bigger  and  nobler  thought  can 
take  root  and  grow  until  it  spreads  over  the  whole 
world  ? 

Says  Professor  Henri  Lichtenberger  in  his  splendid 
book,  Germany  and  Its  Evolution  in  Modern  Times 
(1913,  translated  from  the  French  by  A.  M.  Ludo- 
vici)  : 

Perhaps  it  is  not  altogether  chimerical  to  think  that 
the  twentieth  century  will  see  the  growth  and  spirit  of  the 
modern  religion  of  unity,  and  that  we  shall  gradually  ap- 
proach the  ideal  of  the  "good  European"  which,  during 
the  height  of  the  nationalistic  enthusiasm,  Nietzsche  had 
the  courage  to  preach  to  his  countrymen. 

This  estimate  of  Nietzsche  by  a  Frenchman,  who  is 


Germany  as  a  World  Power  'j'j 

at  present  the  French  exchange  professor  in  Harvard, 
shatters  a  stock  argument  of  the  anti-Germans. 
Nietzsche  was  a  great  man  but  had  not  much  influence 
in  Germany.  He  wielded  the  German  language  in  a 
way  which  defies  translation,  and  cannot  be  under- 
stood by  fragmentary  sentences.  It  is  true  that  he 
preached  the  gospel  of  strength.  But  if  one  really 
wishes  to  know  what  he  meant  one  should  either  read 
Professor  Lichtenberger's  book,  or,  better  still,  have 
attended  his  Harvard  lectures. 

While  it  is  obviously  impossible  to  comment  on  all 
the  errors  due  to  the  differences  of  language  in  Amer- 
ica and  in  Germany,  and  to  the  broken  cables  and  the 
interruption  of  other  direct  means  of  communication, 
a  few  more  very  characteristic  errors  deserve 
attention. 

There  is  a  story  current,  and  vouched  for  by  many 
people,  to  the  effect  that  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the 
German  army  and  navy  officers  for  many  years  to 
toast  at  their  official  dinners  ''  The  Day  "  on  which  the 
invasion  of  France  and  England  would  take  place. 
This  toast  has  been  variously  called  Am  Tag,  Dent 
Tag,  and  Der  Tag.  From  a  linguistic  point  of  view 
the  first  two  forms  are  impossible.  If  the  toast 
were  drunk,  it  would  be  Der  Tag.  A  close  investi- 
gation has  proved  that  there  is  no  substantiation  what- 
soever of  the  report  of  such  a  toast  having  been  drunk 
in  the  army.  All  those  who  have  claimed  to  speak 
with  authority  have  had  reference  to  a  habit  in  the 
navy.  Very  fortunately  for  those  who  wish  to  deny 
the  truth  of  this  report,  the  German  discipline  is  so 
strict  that  it  even  regulates,  in  the  navy  manual,  the 
toasts  to  be  drunk  at  official  dinners  on  shipboard. 


78  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  regulation  reads  that  there  shall  be  only  one  toast 
—  Se,  Majestdt  der  Kaiser,  hurrah!  And  it  adds 
that  no  other  toast  shall  be  drunk.'*' 

Another  canard  which  has  already  been  officially 
denied  had  reference  to  an  army  order  by  the  German 
Emperor  expressing  his  disregard  for  "  Sir  John 
French's  contemptible  little  army."  So-called  fac- 
simile reproductions  of  the  order  were  posted  all  over 
England  and  the  body  of  the  text  was  cabled  to  Amer- 
ica. If  the  censor  had  not  refused  to  pass  also  the 
heading,  it  would  have  been  seen  at  once  that  the 
whole  thing  was  a  clumsy  forgery.  In  the  first  place, 
it  began:  "His  Royal  and  Imperial  Majesty."  This 
is  the  English  way  of  referring  to  the  monarch,  while 
the  German  way  is  "His  Imperial  and  Royal  Maj- 
esty." Secondly,  the  order  was  dated  not  only  "  Head- 
quarters," as  all  genuine  orders  are,  but  contained  the 
name  of  the  place  where  the  headquarters  were  sup- 
posed to  be.  This,  too,  was  contrary  to  the  German 
custom,  because  the  name  of  the  place  where  the 
Emperor  is  staying  during  the  war  is  always  kept  a 
secret. 

The  greatest  story,  however,  has  grown  up  in  the 
minds  of  many  people  in  connection  with  Alsace- 
Lorraine.  This  province  is  not  only  cited  as  an  in- 
stance of  German  mismanagement,  but  has  been  repre- 
sented as  French  at  heart,  and  anxious  to  return  to  a 
political  union  with  France.  One  often  hears  remarks 
about  German  greed  and  lack  of  political  wisdom  in 
forcing  France  to  surrender  these  beautiful  provinces 
to  Germany  in  1871. 

*  For  an  authoritative  denial  of  this  story,  see  Collier's 
Weekly,  March  2y,  19 15,  p.  6. 


Germany  as  a  World  Power  79 

It  may  be  readily  conceded  that  there  are,  espe- 
cially in  the  northwest,  numerous  French  sympathizers, 
and  that  there  are  in  addition  many  men  of  education 
who,  like  Professor  Lichtenberger,  himself  the  son 
of  an  Alsatian  family,  wish  to  see  Alsace-Lorraine 
develop  into  a  country  of  "  double  culture."  This  does 
not  mean  with  them  half  German  and  half  French, 
but  fully  German  and  fully  French.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  any  people  are  capable  of  thus  carry- 
ing the  civilization  of  two  distinct  races.  There  are 
some  exceptional  men  who  can  do  this,  but  so  far  as 
the  masses  are  concerned  it  is  impossible.  Politically 
speaking,  therefore,  "double  culture"  amounts  to  a 
French  propaganda,  and  is  generally  classed  with  the 
aims  of  the  more  outspoken  French  sympathizers. 

When  Alsace-Lorraine  was  taken  over  from  France 
in  1 87 1,  it  had  approximately  1,500,000  inhabitants. 
Before  introducing  the  new  form  of  government,  the 
people  were  given  permission  to  decide  whether  they 
wished  to  retain  French  citizenship  or  become  Ger- 
mans. One  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  people,  most 
of  them  in  Lorraine,  chose  French  citizenship,  while 
only  about  50,000  decided  to  emigrate  to  France.  The 
official  figures  of  emigration  in  191 1  were  only  472,  of 
whom  451  came  to  America.  These  figures  are  negli- 
gible, considering  the  fact  that  the  number  of  the 
inhabitants  has  grown  to  almost  two  millions. 

Beginning  with  1875,  Alsace-Lorraine  was  per- 
mitted to  send  fifteen  representatives  to  the  Reichstag, 
the  full  quota  to  which  her  numbers  entitled  her,  but 
she  was  not  given  the  full  rights  of  a  confederated 
state.  Her  local  Diet  had  limited  powers,  and  the 
country's  discontent  with  these  regulations  showed  in 


8o  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  solid  anti-Government  front  of  her  representatives. 
From  1875  to  1887  only  "Alsatians"  were  returned 
to  the  Reichstag.  In  1890,  that  is,  twenty  years  after 
the  war,  this  number  dropped  from  fifteen  to  ten;  in 
1893  to  eight;  it  rose  again  to  ten  in  1898,  but  then 
dropped  to  nine  in  1903,  to  seven  in  1907  and  to  two 
in  19 12.  The  remaining  thirteen  representatives  were 
divided  among  the  several  parties,  showing  that 
Alsace-Lorraine  had  begun  to  identify  her  interests 
with  those  of  the  empire  at  large. 

These  figures  do  not  speak  so  loud  as  the  enthusi- 
astic proclamations  of  the  few  French  nationalists, 
translated  and  quoted  in  America,  but  they  carry 
greater  weight,  and  reveal  more  clearly  the  true  state 
of  the  19 12  Reichstag  delegation  which  was  due  to 
the  new  constitution  granted  in  191 1. 

Even  yet  the  country  is  not  a  full-fledged  state  of 
the  Confederation  of  German  States  called  the  Ger- 
man Empire.  It  has  its  representatives  in  the  Reichs- 
tag like  the  others,  but  its  three  delegates  in  the 
Bundesrat  are  bound  by  a  peculiar  restriction.  If  they 
should  vote  with  Prussia,  and  by  so  doing  secure  a 
majority  for  the  side  on  which  Prussia  is  voting,  they 
shall  not  be  counted.  This  is  a  check  placed  on  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  and  especially  on  Prussia,  by  the  other  Ger- 
man states,  and  shows  how  erroneous  the  idea  is  that 
Prussia  could  do,  and  actually  did,  in  the  empire  what- 
ever she  chose. 

The  inhabitants  of  Alsace  are  thoroughly  German,* 
many  of  them  being  unable  to  speak  or  understand 
French.  Some  of  the  educated  classes  know  both 
languages,  but  even  in  such  homes  German  is  spoken 

*  See  Why  Europe  Is  at  War,  ch.  3. 


Germany  as  a  World  Pozver  8i 

almost  exclusively.  Nor  need  this  surprise  one;  for 
Alsace  is  an  old  German  country,  "  fraudulently 
snatched  from  the  German  Empire  by  Louis  xiv/'  as 
Professor  Lichtenberger  says.*  The  Germans,  he  sug- 
gests, should  not  have  waited  until  1871,  but  should 
have  taken  Alsace  in  1815,  but 

the  diplomatists  had  failed  to  bring  the  work  to  a  satis- 
factory conclusion.  They  had  left  Alsace  in  the  hands 
of  France,  who  in  the  past  had  torn  it  away  from  the 
German  Empire,  to  whose  security  it  was  indispensable. 

Germany  has  always  claimed  this  while  Bismarck 
elucidated  it  in  his  famous  speech,t  where  he  pointed 
out  that  the  South  German  States  refused  to  join  the 
empire  unless  the  danger  of  a  French  ever  ready  sally 
port,  which  existed  in  Strassburg,  was  removed. 

But  the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  in  1871  was 
more  than  an  allowance  to  military  necessity;  it  was 
an  act  of  justice.  These  lands  had  been  loyal  German 
states  until  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  when  parts  were 
ceded  to  France.  Toul  and  Verdun  changed  hands 
first,  then  followed  Metz  and  the  surrounding  coun- 
try, and  finally,  in  1681,  in  time  of  absolute  peace, 
Louis  XIV  seized  Strassburg.  Of  all  the  German 
princes  only  Frederic  William,  the  Great  Elector,  saw 
his  duty  and  answered  the  Alsatian  cry  for  help.  The 
emperor  sent  him  some  troops,  but  their  support  was 
lukewarm,  and  the  expedition  failed.  An  old  account 
of  the  final  battle  contains  these  words :  "'  When  the 
great  Turenne  saw  that  fortune  was  favoring  the  Ger- 
man side,  he  advanced  the  French  guards  and  some 
English  battalions."  These  English  soldiers  were  prob- 

*  Germany  and  Its  Evolution  in  Modern  Times,  p.  I34- 
t  See  The  German  Classics,  Vol.  x. 


82  Germany's  Point  of  View 

ably  mercenaries,  but  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the 
English  should  have  fought  side  by  side  with  the 
French  on  December  26,  1674,  when  the  latter  set  out 
to  capture  the  German  city  of  Strassburg,  to  which 
they  had  not  a  vestige  of  right;  and  that  240  years 
later  they  should  again  be  fighting  together,  the  French 
and  the  English,  in  order  to  deprive  Germany  once 
more,  and,  if  possible,  forever,  of  Alsace-Lorraine. 

France  acquired  these  lands  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, and  as  late  as  toward  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century  she  had  made  practically  no  progress  in  her 
attempts  at  turning  the  people  into  Frenchmen.  As 
late  as  1782  a  History  and  Description  of  Alsace  and 
Its  Inhabitants  was  published  at  Decker's  in  Basel, 
written  in  German.     The  author  says : 

The  Alsatians  have  been  long  wishing  for  a  historical- 
geographical  handbook,  in  which  their  fatherland  and  its 
true  appearance  is  depicted.  The  works  of  Father  Laguille 
and  the  immortal  Councillor  Schopflin  are  not  only  written 
in  languages  which  are  practically  unknown  to  ordinary 
men,  but  they  also  contain  too  much  material. 

This  clearly  shows  that  the  Alsatians  had  tena- 
ciously clung  to  their  German  mother  tongue  through 
the  almost  two  centuries  of  French  occupation. 
Learned  Latin  books  were,  of  course,  unintelligible 
to  them,  but  even  the  French  books  they  could  not 
read.  A  handy  geography  had  to  be  written  for  them 
in  German  as  late  as  in  1782. 

Formerly  this  might  have  seemed  surprising,  but 
since  Dr.  Heinrich  Rocholl  discovered  the  old  Alsa- 
tian records  and  published  many  of  them  in  1888 
(Gotha,  F.  A.  Perthes),  it  has  become  known  how 
tenaciously  these  people   fought  against  tremendous 


Germany  as  a  World  Power  83 

odds  to  preserve  their  German  identity,  their  German 
allegiance,  their  old  rights  and  privileges,  and  above 
all  their  mother  tongue.  The  vain  calls  for  help 
addressed  to  the  empire,  and  the  duplicity  of  King 
Louis  XIV,  are  vividly  portrayed.  There  is  the  letter 
in  Louis's  own  hand  guaranteeing  the  people  their 
former  privileges  and  their  communal  freedom,  and 
there  are  the  records  of  the  year  of  terror,  1673, 
when  the  people  of  most  of  the  cities  had  to  do  hard 
labor  and  destroy  their  own  fortresses  at  the  peril  of 
their  lives.  There  are  the  documents  of  French  con- 
spiracies to  overthrow  what  the  king  had  promised 
them,  and  in  between  there  is  this  noble  sounding 
speech  by  the  French  ambassador: 

The  king  does  not  at  all  care  to  possess  these  cities  of 
yours.  They  are  far  too  insignificant  that  he  should,  for 
their  sake,  sully  his  glory,  or  be  willing  to  have  people 
say  that  he  had  wished  to  take  them  off  their  guard.  .  .  . 
On  the  contrary,  I  can  definitely  assure  you  that  if  your 
cities  were  to  surrender  to  the  king  of  their  own  accord, 
and  if  you  came  to  tell  me  so,  he  would  not  accept  them; 
for  the  king  has  only  three  ends  in  view  in  his  reign; 
glory,  justice,  and  the  interests  of  his  kingdom !  la  gloire, 
la  justice,  et  Uinterest  de  son  royaume. 

This  message  was  given  to  the  people  in  1672,  and 
in  the  next  year  the  cities  were  unmercifully  re- 
duced, and  a  few  years  later  even  Strassburg  was 
stolen  and  added  to  the  "glorious,  justice-loving" 
kingdom  of  France! 

One  may  well  ask  how  many  of  the  Frenchmen  who 
during  these  past  forty-three  years  have  grieved  at  the 
loss  of  Strassburg  and  draped  its  statue  in  mourning 
every  year  on  July  14,  have  known  how  this  city  hap- 
pened to  belong  to  France  in  the  first  place.  Prob- 
ably not  one  in  ten  thousand,  possibly  even  less. 


84  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  whole  of  Alsace  was  German,  spoke  German, 
and  wanted  to  return  to  Germany  through  almost  200 
years.  But  when  the  French  Revolution  swept  the 
country ;  when  the  oppressors  were  turned  out ;  when 
the  long-thwarted  German  love  of  personal  and  com- 
munal freedom  was  fanned  into  wild  fires  of  enthusi- 
asm ;  when,  after  that,  Napoleon  came  along,  appealing 
to  the  imagination  of  the  people;  when,  for  the  first 
time  in  centuries,  Alsatian  men  reached  the  pin- 
nacles of  national  reputation;  when  France  seemed 
to  be  leading  the  world  into  a  brighter  and  happier 
future,  while  Germany  remained  weak  and  seemingly 
unmoved  by  the  dawn  of  a  new  era,  then  the  people 
of  Alsace-Lorraine  became  partly  French.  They  were 
proud  of  being  a  part  of  that  nation  which  meant  light 
and  progress  in  the  world. 

It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  from  Napoleon  i  to 
1871  the  Alsatians  began  to  feel  more  and  more 
French.  Changing  thus  their  ideas  of  centuries,  they 
yet  clung  with  unswerving  faith  to  one  thing  —  their 
German  speech.  In  1838  the  following  words  were 
publicly  spoken  in  Strassburg  and  reprinted  by 
Johann  Wilhelm  Baum: 

We  speak  German !  This  does  not  only  mean  that  we 
refuse  to  abjure  our  mother  tongue,  but  that  we  wish  to 
preserve  German  ways  and  customs,  German  seriousness 
and  friendship,  German  unselfishness  and  Gemiithlichkeit 
in  our  whole  life,  in  our  faith,  in  everything  we  think 
and  do,  and  that  we  intend  to  leave  these  qualities  as  a 
sacred  inheritance  to  our  children.  This  is  our  patriotism. 
.  .  .  Politically  we  are  French  and  wish  to  remain  so. 
But,  when  we  preach  or  sing,  write  or  read,  pray  or  make 
poetry,  we  have  to  do  it  in  German.  Only  under  these 
conditions  can  we  be  faithful,  pious,  brave  and  lovers  of 
freedom.  Take  away  our  speech  —  and  you  will  bring  up 
a  race  of  slaves,  whom  you  may  never  again  trust.     We 


Germany  as  a  World  Power  85 

have  given  much,  sacrificed  much.  We  ask  nothing  in 
return,  and  will  not  even  count  our  cost.  But  what  is  left 
they  should  not  take  from  us.  They  must  leave  us  our 
German  Christianity,  and  not  try  to  dress  up  our  preachers 
in  Paris.  They  must  not  forbid  our  children  to  speak 
to  us  as  we  have  spoken  to  our  fathers  and  mothers.  They 
must  not  spoil  our  love  of  song,  nor  tear  our  past  from 
our  hearts. 

This,  however,  was  the  very  thing  Napoleon  iii 
tried  to  do,  as  is  proved  by  the  documents  found  by 
Dr.  Rocholl.  He  met  with  vigorous  protests,  not 
only  from  the  Protestants  but  also  from  the  Catholics. 
Their  reasons  for  wishing  to  retain  the  German  speech 
were  different.  Father  Cazeaux  found  that  French 
instruction  in  school  and  German  speech  at  home  re- 
sulted, in  most  instances,  in  a  state  of  ignorance  where 
neither  language  could  be  easily  read  by  the  common 
people  who  had  been  obliged  to  leave  school  early. 
He,  therefore,  came  to  "the  sad  conclusion  that  he 
who  fights  against  the  German  speech  is  waging  war, 
as  it  were,  against  the  religion,  the  sense  of  right  and 
wrong,  and  consequently  the  morals  of  Alsace." 

The  Protestants  stood  more  distinctly  on  the  ground 
taken  by  Baum,  who  believed  that  the  whole  inner 
life  of  the  Alsatians  was  bound  up  with  their  German 
speech.  Without  this  they  could  no  longer  pray  or 
sing,  or  laugh  or  weep  as  heretofore,  but  would  have 
to  become  a  race  of  untrustworthy  slaves. 

Through  250  years  the  vast  majority  of  the  people 
of  Alsace-Lorraine  had  kept  their  German  speech  in 
spite  of  oppression,  in  spite  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
revolution,  and  later  again  in  spite  of  a  more  system- 
atic and  offensive  oppression.  Then  there  came  1871. 
The  country,  except  Toul,  Verdun,  Belfort,  and  their 


86  Germany's  Point  of  View 

surrounding  territories,  returned  to  the  empire,  from 
which  it  had  been  "  fraudulently  snatched  away "  by 
Louis  XIV.  Forty-three  years  have  passed.  The  coun- 
try has  its  own  constitution,  which  grants  it  a  local 
Diet,  while  it  has  almost  full  representation  in  both 
the  Reichstag  and  the  Bundesrat.  Its  anti-German  del- 
egation has  dwindled  from  fifteen  representatives  to 
two,  its  emigration  is  negligible,  thousands  of  its  sons 
have  taken  office  under  the  civil  service  of  the  coun- 
try, and  when  this  war  broke  out  the  vote  of  German 
patriotic  loyalty  was  almost  universal. 

The  country  is  among  the  most  beautiful  of  Europe, 
so  that  the  French  love  to  refer  to  it  as  '' le  beau 
jardinf'  The  people  who  largely  inhabit  it  are  a  hard- 
working race,  German  to  the  core,  peaceful,  impatient 
of  change,  and,  as  a  peasant  said  to  an  American  vis- 
itor two  summers  ago,  "perfectly  content  to  be  and 
to  remain  German." 


CHAPTER  VII 


ALS  ACE-LORRAI N  E 


ALSACE-LORRAINE  enjoys  today,  under  its 
new  constitution,  manhood  suffrage  and  the 
secret  ballot.  The  second  chamber  of  the  Alsatian 
Diet,  so  elected,  chooses  its  own  speaker.  The  pres- 
ent speaker  is  Dr.  Ricklin,  who  has  been  additionally 
honored  by  the  electors  as  one  of  the  fifteen  repre- 
sentatives from  Alsace-Lorraine  to  the  German 
Reichstag.  Having  been  prevented  by  ill  health  from 
attending  the  session  of  the  Reichstag  on  August  4  of 
this  year,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  speaker  of  the 
Reichstag,  which,  translated,  reads  as  follows: 

Dear  Mr.  Speaker  —  Please  excuse  my  absence  from  the 
Reichstag.  I  started  for  Berlin  Sunday  night,  August 
2,  but  was  taken  ill  suddenly  and  had  to  return  to  Cars- 
pach-Sonnenberg.  I  regret  my  absence  from  the  Reich- 
stag very  much  because  I  should  have  liked  to  take  the 
opportunity  of  expressing  there  in  the  name  of  my  con- 
stituents my  regret  and  deep  sorrow  at  the  political  diffi- 
culties which  have  arisen.  The  idea  of  war  between  Ger- 
many and  France  is  so  terrible  and  awful  for  us  people 
in  Alsace-Lorraine  that  we  hardly  dare  to  think  of  it. 
We  do  not  want  a  war  between  Germany  and  France  at 
any  cost,  certainly  not  for  the  sake  of  altering  our  political 
position.  People  who  have  spread  a  different  view  among 
the  French  and  have  thereby  fanned  the  French  thoughts 
of  war  are  traitors  to  our  people  and  have  drawn  upon 
them  the  curses  of  thousands  of  Alsace-Lorraine  people, 
fathers,  mothers,  and  wives,  who  with  bleeding  hearts 
must  see  their  sons  and  husbands  go  into  the  most  ter- 
rible of  all  wars. 

To  the  last  we  hoped  that  we  might  be  spared  the 

87 


88  Germany's  Point  of  View 

terrors  of  a  war  between  Germany  and  France,  and  even 
now  our  people  refuse  to  give  up  hope.  If,  however,  God 
has  decreed  differently,  well  —  then  the  Alsace-Lorraine 
people  too  will  do  their  whole  duty  and  they  will  do  it 
without  a  single  reservation. 

The  rules  of  the  Reichstag  do  not  permit  a  representa- 
tive to  vote  by  mail,  but  I  have  the  right  to  inform  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  should  have  voted,  if  I  had  been 
present,  in  favor  of  all  the  bills  which  the  present  state 
of  affairs  demanded,  including  the  bill  granting  the  neces- 
sary funds  for  carrying  on  the  war. 

You  have  the  right,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make  any  use  you 
choose  of  this  letter.  With  the  expression  of  great  re- 
spect I  am  very  sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)  Dr.  Ricklin, 

Member  of  the  Reichstag. 

Professor  Lichtenberger,  taking  exception  to  the 
author's  previous  remarks,  stated  in  the  Transcript 
of  November  21,  1914,  that  Alsace  had  risen  "on 
the  eve  of  the  war  in  a  movement  of  solemn,  unani- 
mous protest  against  the  violence  which  had  been 
done  her  by  annexation  to  Germany."  He  was  prob- 
ably not  acquainted  with  Dr.  Ricklin's  letter  and  drew 
his  conclusions  from  reports  published  in  France. 
In  times  of  war  every  side  is  inclined  to  magnify  the 
news  favorable  to  its  own  contentions  and  to  gener- 
alize from  isolated  occurrences.  Since  the  last  elec- 
tions to  the  Reichstag  resulted  in  a  delegation  of 
thirteen  representatives  who  proclaimed  their  alle- 
giance to  the  various  German  parties,  and  two  rep- 
resentatives who  proclaimed  their  French  sympathies, 
it  appears  that  the  people  were  divided  in  their  feelings 
for  and  against  Germany  at  the  ratio  of  thirteen  to 
two.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  small  minority 
of  French  sympathizers  created  demonstrations  in 
favor  of  the  French  on  the  eve  of  the  war.    One  of 


Alsace-Lorraine   .  89 


the  two  representatives  in  the  Reichstag,  Mr.  Wetterle, 
immediately  went  to  Paris,  where  he  issued  a  procla- 
mation, signing  it  "  former  representative  in  the  Ger- 
man Reichstag/'  He  was,  of  course,  well  received 
and  may  have  carried  to  France  the  information 
which  suggested  to  Professor  Lichtenberger  a  general 
uprising  in  Alsace-Lorraine. 

Dr.  Ricklin's  letter,  however,  carries  more  weight 
than  Mr.  Wetterle's  manifesto,  not  only  because  of 
his  important  position  as  speaker  of  the  second  cham- 
ber of  the  local  Diet,  but  also  because  of  the  fact  that 
he  represents  the  group  of  thirteen  in  the  Reichstag, 
while  Mr.  Wetterle  represents  the  group  of  two. 

Professor  Lichtenberger,  however,  was  right  when 
he  spoke  of  such  a  tremendous  movement  on  the  eve 
of  the  war  that  it  could  be  called  a  unanimous  move- 
ment. But  it  was  a  patriotic  uprising  in  favor  of 
Germany,  as  is  proved  by  countless  letters,  and  best 
of  all  by  the  numbers  of  young  men  from  Alsace- 
Lorraine  who  volunteered  for  the  German  Army.  In 
gifts  for  the  German  soldiers  at  the  front,  the  various 
Alsatian  cities  are  vying  with  each  other,  while  per- 
haps the  most  patriotic  and  most  generous  is  the  very 
city  of  Zabern,  where  the  unfortunate  affair  between 
the  military  and  the  hoodlum  element  of  the  town 
took  place  last  year.  Nobody  outside  of  Zabern 
excused  the  action  of  the  officers.  The  townspeople 
themselves,  however,  who  knew  the  conditions,  the 
provocations,  and  most  especially  the  general  character 
of  the  officers,  said  much  in  their  defence.  Zabern 
was  one  of  the  first  districts  which  elected  a  German 
friendly  representative  to  the  Reichstag  and  has  gone 
on  doing  so  ever  since. 


90  Germany^s  Point  of  View 

This  proves  how  dangerous  it  is  —  if  one  really 
cares  to  know  the  truth  —  to  reason  from  exaggerated 
reports.  Unless  one  had  known  the  facts  just  men- 
tioned, one  would  have  felt  justified  in  believing  that 
Zabern  of  all  places  was  anti-German.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  is  exceedingly  well  satisfied  with  being 
German. 

One  should  also  not  forget  that  the  Zabern  inci- 
dent was  the  only  one  of  its  kind  that  has  occurred. 
A  weak  and  inefficient  burgomaster,  a  troublesome 
hoodlum  element,  a  vigorous  anti-government  propa- 
ganda carried  on  by  a  very  small  minority,  and  a 
young  and  overzealous  officer  —  all  combined  to  bring 
about  an  explosion  which  would  have  been  much 
worse,  most  Germans  believe,  if  the  commander  of  the 
troops  had  not  shown  strength  and  common  sense. 

The  general  disapproval,  however,  not  only  in  Al- 
sace, but  all  over  Germany,  of  such  army  regulations 
as  made  the  clash  possible  proved  how  great  the 
freedom  of  the  press  in  Germany  is.  The  German 
press  is  as  free  as  that  of  America,  and  those  editors 
who  recently  stated  that  articles  like  the  one  of  Ber- 
nard Shaw  in  the  New  York  Times  would  have 
landed  their  authors  in  jail  in  Germany  were  mis- 
taken. In  times  of  war,  Germany,  of  course,  censors 
her  newspapers  just  as  the  other  belligerent  coun- 
tries do,  although  in  this  particular  war  her  censor- 
ship seems  to  be  less  rigorous  than  that  of  her  op- 
ponents. In  times  of  peace,  however,  the  freedom 
of  speech  in  Germany  is  limited  only  by  the  demands 
of  decency.  Scurrilous  and  slanderous  attacks  are 
forbidden  there  as  here,  but  everybody  remembers 
the  very  vigorous  criticism  of  the  emperor  himself,  a 


A  Isace-Lorraine  9 1 


few  years  ago,  when  the  people  beHeved  that  he  had 
spoken  unwisely  and  had  jeopardized  the  international 
policy  of  the  empire,  for  the  conduct  of  which  the 
chancellor  is  the  responsible  minister. 

Bernard  Shaw  is  no  lover  of  Germany,  but  his 
nimble  wit  has  found  the  chinks  in  the  armor  of  the 
present  British  Government,  and  with  keen  satire  he 
has  demolished  the  arguments  by  which  some  British 
statesmen  have  presented  Germany  or  Prussia  or  the 
Kaiser  as  arch  fiends.  This  has  made  him  persona 
non  grata  in  many  circles,  for  the  more  ardent  anti- 
Germans  apparently  feel  that  the  Germans  must  be 
either  fiends  or  angels.  If  they  were  angels,  the 
Allies  would  have  to  be  in  the  wrong,  and  since  this 
appears  to  be  incredible  to  those  whose  sympathies 
are  with  the  English,  or  the  French,  or  the  Russians, 
or  the  Japanese,  or  the  Hindus,  or  the  Zouaves,  or  the 
colored  troops  from  Africa,  or  the  Servians,  they  feel 
uneasy  in  the  face  of  any  argument  which  presents 
the  Germans  to  them  as  very  human.  It  is,  however, 
conceivable  that  the  Germans  are  not  so  bad  as  they 
have  been  painted,  although  they  yet  must  bear  their 
share  of  guilt  in  the  present  war.  It  takes  two  to 
make  a  quarrel,  and  the  fact  is  that  Germany  today 
finds  herself  at  war  with  her  neighbors. 

The  first  accusations  were  launched  against  Ger- 
many as  a  whole,  but  when  it  was  found  that  Germany 
had  made  a  pretty  good  name  for  herself  through  two 
generations,  the  charges  were  laid  at  the  door  of  the 
Emperor.  Unfortunately  for  the  accusers,  Germany 
and  its  Emperor  were  found  to  be  inseparable,  and 
the  mature  judgment  of  the  Emperor  expressed  as 
recently  as  in  June,  19 13,  by  such  prominent  men  as 


9^  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Ex-President  Taft,  the  Duke  of  Argyle,  Sir  Gilbert 
Parker,  and  many  others,  presented  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent picture  of  William  ii  than  seemed  compatible 
with  the  notion  that  he  was  an  arch-enemy  of 
mankind. 

Mr.  Taft  said: 

The  truth  of  history  requires  the  verdict  that,  consid- 
ering the  critically  important  part  which  has  been  his 
among  the  nations,  he  (the  German  Emperor)  has  been, 
for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  the  greatest  single  indi- 
vidual force  in  the  practical  maintenance  of  peace  in 
the  world. 

The  Duke  of  Argyle  said : 

The  German  Emperor's  life  has  been  worthy  of  his 
father  and  of  his  mother,  and  no  higher  praise  can  be 
rendered  in  grateful  acknowledgment  of  a  great  career 
—  great  with  the  abounding  blessing  of  peace,  duty  done 
for  his  people,  and  his  justice  to  his  neighbors. 

This  generation  of  Germans  have  good  reason  to  be 
proud  and  to  love  their  patriotic  emperor. 

Sir  Gilbert  Parker  said  : 

The  greatest  praise  that  I  can  offer  concerning  Emperor 
William  ii  is  that  he  would  have  made  as  good  a  king  of 
England  as  our  history  has  provided,  and  as  good  a  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  as  any  since  George  Washington. 

It  was  said  of  Emperor  William  that  he  was  medieval 
in  his  war  spirit,  but  he  has  proved  himself  to  be  a  modern 
keeper  of  the  peace. 

When  it  was  found  that  also  the  Emperor  could 
not  for  long  be  painted  as  a  fiend,  Prussia  was  redis- 
covered. Hand  on  your  heart,  reader,  just  where  and 
what  is  Prussia?  Prussia  extends  from  Koenigsberg 
to  the  Rhine,  from  the  sea  to  the  beautiful  hills  in 
central   Germany.     Are  the   cheerful   inhabitants  of 


Alsace-Lorraine  93 


Cologne,  or  the  poetic  dwellers  on  the  banks  of  the 
Rhine,  the  Saale,  and  the  Elbe,  or  the  rugged  men 
in  whose  Silesian  mountain  huts  the  traveler  finds 
an  always  cheerful  welcome,  or  the  people  of  Pome- 
rania,  who  cling  with  tender  love  to  their  less  fertile 
fields  —  are  these  the  fiends  who  have  brought  about 
this  war?  And  if  they  are  not  the  guilty  people,  then 
where  are  they?  Where  is  this  terrible  Prussia  that 
has  terrorized  Germany,  although  it  had  only  seven- 
teen out  of  the  sixty-one  votes  in  the  Bundesrat,  and 
not  more  than  its  proper  quota  of  representatives  in 
the  Reichstag? 

But,  it  is  said,  it  was  not  Prussia  as  such,  but  the 
Prussian  spirit  which  has  undermined  the  fine  German 
character.  If  this  is  so,  it  is  strange  that  no  notice  of 
it  reached  the  outer  world  until  after  the  outbreak  of 
the  war.  Searchers  after  the  truth  will  find  that  also 
this  charge  against  Prussia  will  have  to  be  abandoned, 
because  it  was  only  made  in  the  hope  of  catching  the 
thoughtless.  Until  recently  Russia  had  a  rather 
ominous  sound  as  the  name  of  a  country  where  free- 
dom could  not  live.  Prussia  sounds  somewhat  like 
Russia,  and  the  similarity  of  sound,  it  was  hoped, 
would  suggest  hostile  thoughts  to  the  American  mind. 
An  interesting  insight  into  the  general  lack  of  famil- 
iarity with  Prussia,  its  name,  location,  and  tendencies, 
is  given  by  the  last  publications  of  an  American  mag- 
azine, which  prints  its  statistics  of  the  naval  losses 
in  this  war  consistently  thus :  British,  German,  French, 
Prussian,  Austrian. 

This  reminds  one  of  Heine's  famous  story.  Asked 
what  he  thought  of  Mr.  B.,  he  replied  that  he  did 
not   know   him,  but  that  he   hated  him  because   he 


94  Germany's  Point  of  View 

reminded  him  of  Mr.  C.  Asked  what  his  objection 
was  to  Mr.  C,  Heine  replied  that  he  did  not  know 
Mr.  C.  either,  but  that  he  fancied  he  would  dislike 
him  if  he  should  know  him.  The  more  frequently 
people  hear  Prussia  accused  as  barbarous  and  auto- 
cratic, the  more  readily  they  will  believe  that  they 
would  hate  her  if  they  knew  her.  It  is,  therefore, 
not  difficult  to  see  why  the  name  of  Prussia  has 
recently  appeared  in  European  despatches,  when  in 
reality  this  kingdom  has  been  sunk  since  1871  into 
the  German  Empire,  so  far  as  its  foreign  relations  are 
concerned.  It  is  as  if  the  name  of  the  State  of  New 
York  were  to  supplant  the  term  United  States  when- 
ever the  character,  the  tendencies,  or  the  motives  of 
the  American  people  were  discussed. 
^  The  attacks  on  Treitschke,  the  historian,  and 
Nietzsche,  the  philosopher,  who  are  accused  of  being 
at  the  bottom  of  the  European  war,  will  refute  them- 
selves when  people  read  the  writings  of  these  men 
and  are  not  satisfied  with  unconnected  excerpts. 
Treitschke  *  wrote  before  the  first  Hague  Conference, 
and  it  can  be  stated  without  fear  of  contradiction 
that  he  took  a  higher  moral  ground  in  his  essays  on 
international  law  than  had  been  taken  by  any  of  his 
contemporaries  anywhere. 

As  to  Nietzsche,  this  delightful  contretemps  hap- 
pened, that  while  the  official  British  Press  Bureau  was 
sending  out  copious  notices  intending  to  prove  that 
the  immoral  teachings  of  Nietzsche  had  corrupted 
the  whole  of  Germany,  the  French  Government  sent 
to  Harvard  as  exchange  professor  Professor  Lichten- 
berger   with   the   avowed   purpose    of   preaching   to 

*  See  President  Hadley  on  Treitschke  in  the  Yale  Review, 


Alsace-Lorraine  95 

America  the  high  ethical  values  of  this  same  — 
Nietzsche ! 

Such  glaring  inconsistencies  —  to  use  a  long  and 
gentle  word  —  of  the  official  British  Press  Bureau  will 
tend  to  lessen  American  belief  in  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  British  publications,  especially  since  several 
American  papers  have  discovered  ways  and  means  of 
obtaining  at  least  some  reports  from  their  own  cor- 
respondents. Accounts  like  those  of  Irvin  Cobb, 
James  O'Donnell  Bennett,  Ray  Beveridge,  Colonel 
Emerson,  and  Halliday  Witherspoon,  present  true 
pictures  of  the  war  and  of  the  real  Germany.  As  a 
result  the  circle  of  people  eager  or  willing  to  believe 
the  worst  of  Germany  is  growing  smaller  every  day, 
while  the  papers  that  refuse  to  print  any  news,  except 
what  is  pro-Allies,  are  fast  disappearing. 

None  of  these  American  newspapers,  however,  were 
as  unfairly  partisan,  even  at  the  height  of  the  season, 
as  the  press  in  some  other  neutral  countries  has  been. 
Let  the  pro-Germans  glance  at  the  Greek  or  Spanish 
papers,  and  they  will  turn  to  the  American  editors 
with  thanks  and  congratulation ;  for  not  one  of  them 
has  stooped  so  low  as  these  other  editors  have  done. 
But  even  the  German  papers  are  not  free  from  exag- 
geration and  misrepresentation.  Papers  live  on  news, 
and  when  good,  clean,  and  true  news  is  not  to  be  had, 
they  must  subsist  on  husks  —  not  from  preference, 
but  from  necessity. 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  this  excitable  newspaper  liter- 
ature of  today  to  the  first  joyous  but  restrained  tones 
of  German  literature,  uttered  in  the  ninth  century  in 
a  corner  of  Alsace.  The  old  monastery  tower  is  still 
standing,  in  a  beautiful  garden  of  Weisenburg,  where 


96  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Otf ried,  the  monk,  wrote  his  Evangelienbuch,  which  he 
presented  to  Emperor  Louis  The  German  in  865.  It 
was  one  of  the  first  books  written  in  German,  and 
contains  these  words:  "Why  should  I  not  use  the 
vernacular?  German  is  not  a  language  constructed 
by  rule,  but  it  is  surely  not  lacking  in  terseness  and 
beautiful  simplicity."  Practically  no  books  are  extant 
by  any  of  Otfried's  contemporaries  and  immediate 
successors  in  Alsace.  Several  names  are  recorded, 
but  none  deserve  mention  before  Gottfried  von  Strass- 
burg  in  the  early  thirteenth  century,  whose  Tristan 
and  Isolde  is  known  wherever  there  is  the  least  inter- 
est in  German  literature. 

A  hundred  years  later  Alsace  gave  to  the  world  the 
great  mystic  meister,  Eckhart,  and  his  even  greater 
pupil,  Johannes  Tauler.  The  latter  preached  that 
work  was  the  crowning  glory  of  life,  and  the  surest 
way  to  social  peace.  In  addition  to  this,  however,  man 
should  commune  with  God  and  steep  his  soul  in  God's 
eternity,  "just  as  a  drop  of  water  is  lost  in  a  bumper 
of  good  wine.  And  if  such  a  man  were  drawn  into 
the  depths  of  hell,  heaven  and  eternal  happiness  would 
have  to  be  even  in  hell." 

After  another  hundred  years  the  greatest  master  of 
the  German  tongue  was  once  more  a  son  of  Alsace, 
Sebastian  Brant.  He  too  was  a  teacher  of  ethical 
values,  but  he  preferred  the  humorous  satire  to  the 
sermon.  His  great  book  is  called  Das  Narrenschiff, 
"  The  Ship  of  Fools,"  in  which  the  foibles  of  all  walks 
and  ranks  of  life  are  cleverly  derided.  Beginning 
with  himself,  a  collector  of  books,  he  passes  in  review 
students,  princes,  peasants,  society  ladies,  ill-tempered 
wives,  artisans,  merchants,  and  others.    All  are  shown 


Alsace-Lorraine  97 


their  special  weaknesses,  which  make  them  ridiculous. 
Unless  they  put  them  aside,  Brant  promises  to  give 
them  the  bells  and  the  cap  of  a  fool. 

Brant's  enormous  popularity  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  a  great  preacher,  Johannes  Geiler,  made  the  sev- 
eral chapters  of  this  book  the  texts  of  his  sermons. 
The  preachers  at  that  time  were  the  most  important 
men,  and,  of  all,  Thomas  Murner  of  Strassburg  was 
perhaps  the  greatest.  He  was  the  first  one  to  translate 
Virgil's  j^neid  into  German.  It  was  pubHshed  in 
the  early  sixteenth  century.  Murner  himself  was  an 
opponent  of  Luther,  while  his  fellow  Alsatians  to  a 
very  large  extent  embraced  the  teachings  of  the 
Reformation. 

After  the  Reformation  all  the  great  writers,  and 
especially  the  poets  of  Alsace,  were  Protestants.  There 
was  the  novelist,  Jorg  Wickram,  who  wrote  the  His- 
tory of  Two  Burning  Love  Affairs  (about  1550),  and 
Johannes  Fischart,  who  has  been  called  the  Luther 
of  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  As  in 
the  case  of  many  writers  of  this  period,  the  titles  of 
Fischart's  books  are  characteristic  of  the  man.  One 
was  Serious  Words  to  My  Beloved  Germa^ts,  and  an- 
other The  Grandmother  of  Common  Sense,  In  this 
book  he  tried  to  do  for  the  Germans  what  Franklin 
did  for  the  AmericaQs  in  the  Poor  Richard's  Alma- 
nack 200  years  later.  Farmers'  almanacs  were  known 
even  then,  and  because  Fischart  believed  that  their 
foolish  prophecies  tended  to  fortify  the  ignorant  in 
their  superstitions  he  substituted,  with  fine  satire, 
even  more  foolish  prophecies,  such  as  these:  "In  this 
month  water  will  be  more  plentiful  than  wine,"  or 
"  In  this  year  all  children  will  be  born  naked." 


98  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Plutarch's  Morals,  and  the  writings  of  Seneca  and 
many  other  classic  authors,  were  translated  into  Ger- 
man by  Alsatian  scholars  during  this  and  the  seven- 
teenth century.  On  the  whole,  however,  these  cen- 
turies were  in  Alsace,  as  elsewhere  in  Germany,  poor 
periods  for  literature.  Unlike  the  rest  of  Germany, 
however,  Alsace  resolutely  refused  to  accept  the  teach- 
ings of  the  foreign,  notably  the  French,  literary 
schools.  The  Alsatians  were  Germans,  and  wished  to 
remain  so  in  everything  and  most  especially  in  their 
speech.  And  why  not?  for,  said  Michael  Moscher- 
osch,  "is  there  an  animal  so  fooHsh  that  it  would 
change  its  voice  to  please  another?  Have  you  ever 
heard  the  cat  bark  to  please  the  dog,  or  the  cat  moo, 
or  the  cow  bray,  or  the  donkey  neigh?''  Then  why 
should  an  Alsatian  speak  French,  or  be  French  to 
please  his  new  masters  ? 

Without  practically  a  single  exception  all  the  Alsa- 
tian writers  continued  to  write  in  German,  and  to 
address  themselves  to  the  people  at  large,  and  not  only, 
as  was  done  elsewhere,  to  the  more  highly  cultured 
classes.  The  result  was  often  somewhat  uncouth,  as 
for  instance,  Messerschmid's  The  Donkey  s  Nobility 
and  the  Sow's  Triumph,  but  it  served  to  keep  alive  in 
the  people  their  intense  love  of  everything  German, 
and  their  hatred  of  French  manners  and  speech. 

The  more  cultured  classes  gradually  formed  a  Ger- 
man literary  circle  in  Strassburg  which  is  well  known 
'  through  the  enjoyment  and  profit  it  gave  to  Goethe 
in  1770. 

Then  there  followed  the  French  Revolution,  after 
which  a  distinctly  French  influence  began  to  trans- 
form the  country  into  a  French  province  rather  than 


Alsace-Lorraine  99 


a  German  land.  The  peasant  class,  however,  the  back- 
bone of  every  State,  remained  then,  as  it  is  today, 
thoroughly  German.  Nor  is  this  remarkable,  for  the 
German  generally  loves  his  past,  and  it  pleases  him 
to  think  of  his  ancestors.  He  worships  the  places  they 
used  to  frequent,  and  to  his  ear  no  language,  not  even 
the  most  courtly,  sounds  quite  as  beautiful  as  the  one 
his  fathers  used  to  speak. 

Professor  Lichtenberger  is  a  guest  in  this  country, 
and  since  he  has  expressed  his  apprehension  lest  the 
quotations  from  his  book,  cited  in  a  previous  chapter, ' 
convey  the  impression  that  he  shares  the  German 
point  of  view,  it  is  due  to  him  to  declare  that  this  is 
not  the  case.  It  was  expressly  stated  that  views  like 
his,  aiming  at  a  "  double  culture  "  for  Alsace-Lorraine, 
amounted,  '"politically  speaking,  to  a  French  propa- 
ganda," and  were  generally  "  classed  with  the  aims  of 
the  more  outspoken  French  sympathizers."  His  book, 
however,  is  written  in  such  a  fine  spirit,  so  devoid  of 
all  political  claptrap  and  bitterness,  and  so  obviously 
desirous  of  suggesting  a  solution  of  a  difficult  prob- 
lem, that  even  the  supporters  of  the  German  side  of 
the  case  should  read  it.  In  addition,  he  states  more 
than  once  that  Alsace-Lorraine  had  been  fraudulently 
taken  away  from  Germany  by  Louis  xiv,  and  thus 
admits  the  fact  which  is  the  cornerstone  of  Germany's 
contention.  This  is  the  more  gratifying,  as  other 
French  writers  have  tried  to  twist  the  meaning  of  the 
treaty  of  Westphalia  in  their  endeavor  to  justify  the 
theft  of  King  Louis.  A  notable  instance  of  such  a 
perversion  of  the  historical  facts  is  found  in  M.  A. 
Legrelle's  book,  Louis  xiv  et  Strassburg,  essai  sur 
la  politique  de  la  France  en  Alsace  d'apres  des  docu- 


loo  Germany's  Point  of  View 

ments  officiels  et  inedits.  While  Professor  Lichten- 
berger  grants  the  facts,  it  would  appear  from  his  letter 
that  he  attaches  little  weight  to  the  distinctly  German 
origin  of  the  Alsatians,  and  their  love  for  their  mother 
tongue.  He  reasons  that  in  187 1  Alsace  had  been 
''  firmly  French,  if  not  in  the  dialect  which  the  peas- 
ants spoke,  at  least  in  its  general  culture  and  its  na- 
tional feelings/'  This  statement  does  not  seem  to  be 
borne  out  by  the  fact  that  only  160,000,  out  of  about 
1,500,000  people,  preferred  French  to  German  citizen- 
ship when  they  were  given  the  opportunity  of  choosing 
between  them,  before  Germany  introduced  her  gov- 
ernment. 

But  if  the  statement  is  accepted  as  correct,  and 
if  it  is  granted  that  Alsace-Lorraine  should  have  been 
permitted  to  remain  French  in  1871  because  its  "na- 
tional feelings  were  French,"  then  by  this  very  same 
argument  Alsace-Lorraine  should  today  be  permitted 
to  remain  German ;  for,  by  its  elections  to  the  Reichs- 
tag, by  its  patriotic  response  to  the  call  of  the  empire, 
and  by  the  attitude  of  its  people,  it  has  shown  that 
whatever  its  national  feelings  were  in  1871,  today  they 
are  overwhelmingly  and  distinctly  German. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ENGLISH  AND  FRENCH  VOICES  —  GERMAN  VICTORIES 

THE  editor  of  the  London  Daily  News  wrote  on 
August  I,  1914: 

The  greatest  calamity  in  history  is  upon  us  —  a  calamity 
so  vast  that  our  senses  are  numbed  with  horror.  We 
hardly  dare  to  look  into  the  pit  that  yawns  at  our  feet 
and  yet  any  hour,  any  minute,  may  plunge  us  in  beyond 
all  hope  of  return.  At  this  moment  our  fate  is  being 
sealed  by  hands  that  we  know  not,  by  motives  alien  to  our 
interests,  by  influences  that  if  we  knew  we  should  cer- 
tainly repudiate.  Every  step  at  this  hour  may  be  irrevo- 
cable. The  avalanche  trembles  on  the  brink  and  a  touch 
may  send  it  shattering  into  the  abyss.  The  peace  of  every 
land,  the  happiness  of  every  home  in  Europe,  the  very 
bread  by  which  we  live,  hang  at  this  moment  upon  the 
will  of  one  man,  the  czar  of  Russia. 

The  world  has  been  made  to  believe  that  Germany 
began  this  war,  that  the  German  Emperor  started  it, 
that  Great  Britain  went  into  it  with  the  sole  purpose 
of  protecting  Belgian  neutrality  and  of  upholding  the 
sanctity  of  treaties.  She  has  done  neither.  Instead 
of  rushing  troops  and  landing  marines,  and  joining 
France  in  turning  the  battles  from  Belgian  soil,  she,  a 
nation  of  over  forty  million  people  sent  for  several 
months  less  than  one-half  of  one  per  cent  of  her  popu- 
lation to  fight.  Belgium,  with  a  population  of  less  than 
one-seventh  that  of  Great  Britain,  put  more  than  twice 
as  many  soldiers  in  the  field  as  her  powerful  ally,  and 
has  largely  continued  to  fight  the  British  battles.  Nous 

lOI 


IQ2  Germany's  Point  of  View 

sommes  trahis  (  ''  we  have  been  betrayed  "  )  was  Cle- 
menceau's  cry  a  few  weeks  after  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  and  soon  after  another  Frenchman  sent  this  letter 
to  the  Morning  Post: 

The  French  press  is  quoting  an  article  from  your  paper 
in  which  you  say  that  England  must  make  exertions 
worthy  of  its  cause  and  the  exertions  of  its  AlHes !  May 
I  assure  you  that  the  great  majority  of  the  French  people 
are  saying  the  same  thing  every  day?  France  is  living 
only  for  the  war.  Her  people,  her  money,  her  industry 
have  been  placed  in  the  service  of  the  war.  Our  factories 
are  closed,  our  commerce  has  stopped.  We  have  only 
one  thought,  namely,  that  our  2,600,000  men  strike  Ger- 
many to  the  ground.  What  has  England  done?  She 
has  sent  us  200,000  men,  and  has  —  issued  a  call  to  her 
sons !  The  English  contingent  fighting  on  the  Continent 
does  not  even  represent  half  of  the  Frenchmen  who  are 
already  "  hors  de  combat/'  Your  appeal  for  recruits 
has  achieved  that  up  to  now  600,000  able-bodied  men  out 
of  a  population  of  40,000,000  have  deemed  it  worth  their 
while  to  risk  their  lives  on  the  battlefield  —  white  the  fate 
of  your  country  is  in  the  balance !  .  .  .  Your  papers  de- 
clare daily  in  eloquent  articles  that  England  will  fight 
one,  two,  three  and  if  necessary  twenty  years,  and  raise 
one  two,  even  three  million  soldiers.  ...  If  you  can  raise 
them  do  so  at  once  in  the  interest  of  your  own  country. 

The  writer  then  continued  to  show  that  the  defeat  of 
the  Allies  would  be  more  disastrous  for  England  than 
for  France,  for  the  British  fleet  alone  would  be  unable 
to  prevent  Germany  from  getting  supplies  through  the 
countries  of  her  neighbors.  The  real  war  could  not  last 
longer  than  a  year,  and  if  the  Allies  were  beaten, 
England  alone,  without  France  and  Russia,  would  be 
unable  to  continue  it  (in  spite  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George's 
silver  bullets).  In  order  to  prevent  defeat,  England 
would  have  to  make  sacrifices.  It  was  wrong  that  the 
English  clerks  should  remain  at  their  desks,  and  the 


English  and  French  Voices  103 

English  farmers  in  their  fields,  and  that  English  mer- 
chants should  be  engaged  in  capturing  German  trade. 
It  was  wrong  that  the  English  theaters  and  music  halls 
were  kept  open,  while  all  Frenchmen  between  the  ages 
of  nineteen  and  forty-eight  were  at  the  front.  The 
letter  closed  with  these  words :  "  I  repeat,  if  our  men 
are  on  the  firing  line,  why  not  yours?" 

No  amount  of  censorship  will,  for  long,  keep  from 
the  world  such  cries  for  help.  And  when  the  world  will 
know  how  poorly  Great  Britain  at  first  championed 
the  cause  of  poor  little  Belgium  and  of  gallant  France, 
neither  of  whom  would  have  risked  their  all  in  war 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  promises  of  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  it  will  be  more  ready  to  listen  to  the  voices 
raised  in  England  against  the  war,  before  Sir  Edward 
Grey  and  Mr.  Asquith  wrote  two  catchwords  on  their 
banner :  "  Belgian  neutrality  and  the  sanctity  of 
treaties." 

Belgian  neutrality!  This  Sir  Edward  Grey  has 
himself  dropped  from  his  promised  guarantee  for 
.future  years.  (See  the  British  Blue  Book  No.  155 
and  the  discussion  in  the  New  York  Times,  November 
I,  1914). 

The  sanctity  of  treaties!  If  Sir  Edward  Grey  hon- 
estly believed  that  the  treaty  of  1839  was  valid,  it 
imposed  upon  Great  Britain  the  duty  of  protecting 
Belgian  neutrality.  Did  she  protect  it?  She  did  not. 
Was  she  prepared  to  do  so,  or  was  she  not  rather 
like  the  man  of  little  money  who  undertakes  to  guar- 
antee a  note  of  a  million  dollars,  which  he  knows  he 
cannot  meet? 

Belgian  neutrality,  sanctity  of  treaties,  German  mili- 
tarism, Prussian  aggressiveness — .all  these  were  ex- 


I04  Germany's  Point  of  View 

cuses,  for  the  London  Daily  News,  August  i,  1914, 
was  right  when  it  said : 

At  St.  Petersburg,  there  sits  the  man  who  has  every 
one  of  these  Hves  and  milHons  more  at  his  mercy,  and 
who  at  one  word  can  let  hell  loose  upon  the  face  of 
Europe.  Is  he  a  man  we  can  trust  with  this  momentous 
power?  He  who  decorates  his  black  hundreds  on  the 
morrow  of  their  massacres  and  holds  half  Europe  in  the 
grip  of  a  medieval  despotism  —  is  he  the  man  whom  the 
free  peoples  of  France  and  England  can  trust  with  their 
destiny?  Is  he  the  man  for  whom  we  are  going  to  shed 
our  blood  and  our  treasure?  Is  Russia  the  type  of  civili- 
zation that  we  are  prepared  to  bleed  ourselves  white  to 
make  triumphant  over  Europe  and  Asia? 

The  question  is  for  us.  For  though  the  Czar  has  his 
hand  on  the  avalanche,  it  is  we  who  have  our  hand  on 
him.  It  is  we  who  in  the  last  analysis  must  say  whether 
Europe  is  to  be  deluged  with  blood.  Do  you  doubt  it? 
Turn  to  your  paper  this  (Friday)  morning.  There  you 
will  see  a  message  from  St.  Petersburg  signed  by  Renter. 
It  begins : 

The  situation  shows,  so  far,  no  change  in  the  direc- 
tion of  peace.  The  sailing  of  the  British  fleet  from 
Portland  has  created  an  immense  impression  and,  coupled 
with  Japan's  assurances,  has  more  than  confirmed 
Russia's  determination  to  stand  to  her  guns. 

In  that  flash  we  see  the  situation.  We  see  the  Czar 
with  his  hand  on  the  avalanche  looking  toward  England 
for  the  one  assurance  that  he  needs.  Let  England  say, 
"  No,  you  touch  it  at  your  own  risk  and  your  own  peril," 
and  his  hand  will  drop.  Let  England  falter,  temporize, 
equivocate,  and  he  will  plunge  us  into  ruin  with  the  rest. 

We  are  told  that  we  must  be  quiet,  that  we  may  encour- 
age Germany  by  making  her  believe  that  she  has  not  to 
reckon  with  us.  But  the  move  is  not  with  Germany.  The 
move  is  with  Russia.  It  is  she  whom  we  encourage  or 
discourage  by  every  word  that  is  said  and  every  action  that 
is  done.  It  is  she  who  has  the  issues  of  war  and  peace 
in  her  hands.  It  is  she  whom  the  sailing  of  our  fleet 
from  Portland  has  "  confirmed  in  her  determination  to 
stand  by  her  guns."     Quiet?     But  who  is  keeping  the 


English  and  French  Voices  105 

Times  and  the  Daily  Mail  and  the  re§t  of  these  papers 
which  by  years  of  anti-German  propaganda  have  been 
paving  the  way  to  this  stupendous  catastrophe  —  who  is 
keeping  them  quiet?  Nay,  who  is  inspiring  them?  Who 
is  authorizing  them  to  tell  Russia  that  she  may  start  the 
avalanche  with  the  assurance  that  we  shall  be  in  the 
abyss  with  her  ?  They  talk  of  our  "  obligations  to  our 
friends."  We  have  no  obligations  except  the  obligation 
to  preserve  this  country  from  any  share  in  the  crime  that 
threatens  to  overwhelm  Europe.  Again  and  again  we 
have  had  the  assurance  of  the  prime  minister  and  Sir 
Edward  Grey  that  we  are  free  agents,  that  our  hands  are 
not  tied.  If  that  is  so,  why  are  these  mischievous  declara- 
tions about  our  complicity  allowed  to  pass?  Every  one 
of  them  is  a  new  incitement  to  Russia,  a  fresh  match 
applied  to  the  powder  magazine  of  Europe.  They  are 
reproduced  in  Russia  to  feed  the  flame  of  popular  pas- 
sion and  to  nerve  the  Czar  to  the  fatal  act. 

If  we  are  free  —  and  we  know  we  are  free  —  what 
ground  is  there  for  involving  ourselves  in  this  unspeakable 
calamity?  On  the  immediate  cause  of  the  quarrel  we 
can  have  no  sympathy  with  Servia.  The  assassination 
of  the  Crown  Prince  and  his  wife  was  a  brutal  and  cold- 
blooded crime,  the  fruit  of  a  conspiracy  laid  with  infinite 
care  and  deliberation  and  wholly  inspired  by  Servia.  It 
was  a  plot  so  complete,  so  official,  as  it  were,  that  there 
was  no  possibility  of  the  victims  escaping.  They  were 
literally  enveloped  by  death  from  the  moment  they  entered 
Serajevo.  The  crime  was  only  the  culmination  of  a  long 
train  of  events,  all  of  which  aimed  at  raising  rebellion 
among  the  Slavs  of  Austria-Hungary,  and  its  immediate 
purpose  was  to  destroy  the  one  life  which  seemed  neces- 
sary to  save  Austria  from  disruption  on  the  old  emperor's 
death.  We  need  not  attempt  to  justify  the  terms  of  the 
ultimatum ;  but  no  one  denies  the  provocation,  no  one  sug- 
gests that  if  the  two  countries  could  be  isolated  Austria 
w^ould  not  be  justified  in  exacting  severe  terms  from  the 
criminal. 

If,  then,  we  have  neither  sympathy  with  Servia  in  the 
quarrel,  nor  a  traditional  interest  in  the  aims  of  her 
master  in  the  Balkans,  why  should  we  go  to  war?  Is 
it  because  we  wish  the  Russian  civilization  to  overwhelm 
the  German  civilization?  There  is  not  a  thinking  being 
in  this  land  who,  competent  to  form  a  judgment,  would 


io6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

not  repudiate  such  a  monstrous  thought.  If  we  crush 
Germany  in  the  dust  and  make  Russia  the  dictator  of 
Europe  and  Asia  it  will  be  the  greatest  disaster  that  has 
ever  befallen  Western  culture  and  civilization.  It  will 
be  a  reaction  to  barbarism  —  the  triumph  of  blind  super- 
stition over  the  most  enlightened  intellectual  life  of  the 
modern  world. 

And  if  it  is  a  question  of  political  supremacy,  of  that 
vague  gibberish  that  is  talked  about  "  the  balance  of 
power/'  can  we  doubt  where  our  interest  lies?  For  years, 
under  the  industrious  propaganda  of  Lord  Northcliffe, 
Mr.  Strackey,  Mr.  Maxse  and  the  militarists,  this  country 
has  been  preached  into  an  anti-German  frame  of  mind 
that  takes  no  account  of  facts.  Where  in  the  wide  world 
do  our  interests  clash  with  those  of  Germany  ?  Nowhere. 
With  Russia  we  have  potential  conflicts  over  the  whole  of 
southeastern  Europe  and  southern  Asia. 

We  are  told  that  the  day  of  our  "  splendid  isolation  " 
is  over  —  that  we  must  have  "friends,"  and  therefore 
enemies.  It  is  false.  Its  falsity  is  proved  by  the  very 
situation  with  which  we  are  faced.  It  is  because  Eng- 
land is  free  that  Europe  hesitates.  It  is  our  neutrality 
which  is  the  only  protection  that  Europe  has  against  the 
hideous  ruin  and  combustion  on  the  brink  of  which  it 
trembles.  Let  us  announce  that  neutrality  to  the  world. 
It  is  the  one  hope.  There  is  no  other.  Let  us  make  it 
clear  that  unless  and  until  British  interests  are  attacked, 
we  will  have  no  part  in  this  world-insanity,  that  we  will 
not  shed  a  drop  of  English  blood  for  Czar  or  Servia, 
that  our  one  obligation  is  the  interests  and  peace  of  this 
land,  and  that  we  refuse  to  recognize  any  other.  We 
can  save  Europe  from  war  even  at  this  last  moment.  But 
we  can  only  save  it  by  telling  the  Czar  that  he  must 
fight  his  own  battles  and  take  the  consequences  of  his 
own  action. 

If  the  British  Government  does  this,  it  will  do  the 
greatest  service  to  humanity  in  history.  If  it  does  not 
do  it,  it  will  have  brought  the  greatest  curse  to  humanity 
in  history.  The  youngest  of  us  will  not  live  to  see  the 
end  of  its  crime. 

The  British  Government  did  not 'do  this;  for,  even 
if  it  had  wished  to  listen  to  this  impassioned  appeal, 


English  and  French  Voices  107 

it  was  too  late.  As  we  now  know  from  the  letter  of 
the  Belgian  diplomat  in  St.  Petersburg  (see  Chapter 
One),  and  can  infer  from  the  despatches  of  Sir  Ren- 
nell  Rodd  from  Rome  (see  New  York  Times,  Novem- 
ber I,  1914),  the  British  support  had  been  promised 
in  St.  Petersburg  during  the  early  morning  hours  of 
July  30.  A  few  days  later,  on  August  2,  that  is  before 
the  German  troops  had  marched  into  Belgium,  Sir 
Edward  Grey  assured  France  of  his  support,  nor  was 
this  promise  made  conditional  on  a  German  infringe- 
ment of  Belgian  neutrality.  (See  also  the  discussion 
of  the  French  Yellow  Book,  Chapters  xvii  to  xix). 

The  world-war  ensued.  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary  matched  against  a  potential  strength  that 
outnumbers  them  at  a  ratio  of  more  than  seven  to 
one,  while  their  combined  area,  on  the  resources  of 
which  they  can  draw,  is  outnumbered  at  a  ratio  of 
probably  more  than  thirty  to  one ! 

The  editor  of  a  Boston  paper,  which  prints  all  avail- 
able news  and  feels  not  called  upon  to  separate  the 
chaff  from  the  nuggets  of  truth,  said  as  early  as  No- 
vember, 1914:  "Germany  is  winning  all  along  the  line." 
And  he  was  right.  Fortune  may  change  and  the 
changes  of  war  may  hereafter  favor  the  Allies.  The 
Germans  may  lose  what  they  have  won,  but  for  the 
present  it  is  a  fact  that  they  are  gaining  all  along  the 
line. 

Readers  of  the  papers,  who  have  seen  perhaps 
ninety  items  or  more  of  news  favorable  to  the  Allies 
to  the  few  accounts  of  German  victories,  must  remem- 
ber that  it  is  not  the  number  of  small  successes  but 
the  size  of  the  few  great  successes  which  counts. 
There  are,  however,  in  the  American  newspaper  of- 


io8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

fices  exceedingly  few  men  who  know  Europe  so  well 
that  they  are  able  to  judge  from  the  cabled  accounts 
whether  the  capture  of  a  certain  position  or  city  is 
important  or  not.  The  most  notable  exception  to  this 
rule  is  Anthony  Arnoux,  whose  marvelously  lucid  dis- 
cussions of  the  daily  despatches  are  appearing  in  the 
Boston  Journal. 

Let  the  reader  take  from  his  bookshelf  any  ordinary 
school  geography,  turn  to  the  map  of  France,  and  lay 
by  its  side  the  published  maps  of  the  positions  of  the 
hostile  western  armies.  Then  let  him  ask  himself  a 
few  simple  questions  such  as  these: 

Where  are  the  French  coal  mines?  They  are  held 
by  the  Germans. 

Where  are  the  French  iron  mines?  They  are  held 
by  the  Germans. 

Where  are  the  other  French  mineral  mines?  They 
are  held  by  the  Germans. 

Where  are  the  French  industrial  centers?  Where 
are  the  great  cotton  mills,  or  the  iron  works?  Where 
are  most  of  the  gun  factories?  They  are  all  held  by  the 
Germans. 

When  this  is  realized,  the  vastness  of  the  German 
successes  in  France  will  be  understood.  The  tremen- 
dous onslaught  early  in  September,  and  the  subsequent 
clever  retreat,  will  be  appreciated  as  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  military  feats  ever  executed.  At  this  dis- 
tance it  is  impossible  to  know  whether  the  Germans 
ever  intended  to  continue  their  victorious  march  on 
Paris.  It  is  more  than  likely  that  this  was  not  their 
intention. 

In  the  meanwhile,  the  German  troops  maintain  their 


English  and  French  Voices  109 

hold  on  all  the  necessities  of  France,  her  mines  and 
centers  of  industries,  and  are  slowly  forging  ahead  in 
the  north  toward  the  Channel  coast.  Occasional  re- 
verses here  or  there  are  immaterial;  the  capture  of  a 
railway  center,  however,  or  a  town  commanding  the 
approaches  to  good  roads,  is  very  important. 

All  these  military  successes  have  been  achieved  in 
spite  of  the  great  numerical  inferiority  of  the  German 
troops.  The  reports  from  Sir  John  French  often 
mention  superior  numbers  of  the  enemy.  If  these 
reports  are  accurate,  they  can  have  reference  only  to 
comparatively  small  contingents,  for  on  the  whole 
battle  line  of  the  West  the  Germans  are  probably  out- 
numbered at  the  ratio  of  three  to  two. 

In  the  East  they  are  outnumbered  to  an  even  greater 
extent;  perhaps  even  at  the  rate  of  two  to  one.  But 
here  also  the  successes  at  arms  have  been  enormous. 
In  two  great  battles,  those  of  Tannenberg  and  Allen- 
stein,  the  field  marshal,  von  Hindenburg,  has  anni- 
hilated one  entire  Russian  army  of  five  army  corps, 
and  half  destroyed  another  army.  The  loss  of  men 
can  easily  be  repaired  by  Russia,  for  her  supply  of 
men  is  practically  inexhaustible.  The  loss  of  officers 
is  more  serious,  and  the  loss  of  guns  and  ammunition 
is  a  calamity  for  Russia.,  She  has  only  one  small  gun 
factory,  and  until  her  northern  harbors  thaw  out  she 
will  be  unable  to  replenish  her  stock  of  guns  and 
cannon. 

Over  and  above  all  this,' the  incontrovertible  fact 
remains  that  for  months  Germany  has  not  been  obliged 
to  support  her  armies,  either  of  the  West  or  of  the 
East,  on  her  own  territory.  She  buys  her  supplies  for 
cash  or  gives  her  receipt  in  the  hostile  countries,  and 


no  Germany's  Point  of  View 

is  enabled  to  save  her  own  comparatively  meager 
resources.  This  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  be- 
cause the  Allies  have  begun  a  systematic  campaign  of 
starving  out  Germany.  Great  Britain  has  broken  all 
laws  of  warfare  on  sea  by  preventing  any  foodstuffs 
from  entering  Germany,  either  directly  or  by  the  way 
of  neutral  countries.  She  has  even  taken  German 
citizens  from  neutral  ships  and  detained  them  as 
prisoners  of  war. 

Under  these  conditions  Germany  is  compelled  to 
maintain  her  army  in  the  territory  of  her  enemies, 
who,  in  their  turn,  of  course,  are  at  liberty  to  consume 
the  food  which  they  and  their  Allies  will  not  permit 
to  enter  into  Germany. 

The  German  successes  on  the  sea  are  too  well 
known  to  deserve  repetition.  Ton  by  ton  and  man 
by  man,  Germany  has  triumphed  over  Great  Britain, 
and  when  the  small  size  of  her  navy  is  considered 
her  victories  thus  far  grow  to  fabulous  proportions. 

It  would  be  more  than  foolish  to  assert  that  Ger- 
many will  be  able  always  to  press  her  advantages  thus 
far  gained,  and  that  she  will  meet  with  no  serious 
reverses  in  the  future.  But  it  would  be  equally  foolish 
to  deny  that  up  to  date  Germany  has  won  military 
successes  greatly  in  excess  of  the  most  sanguine  expec- 
tations of  those  who  knew  the  enormous  odds  against 
her. 

But,  oh,  the  sacrifices  she  has  brought  on  the  altar 
of  the  Fatherland!  Tears  and  sorrow  in  every  fam- 
ily! In  one  single  family,  that  of  von  Konig,  five 
brothers  have  laid  down  their  lives  for  their  country. 
The  victories  have  been  dearly  won. 

But  Germany  is  not  the  only  country  where  sorrow 


English  and  French  Voices  iii 

reigns.  In  the  French  letter  quoted  above,  the  state- 
ment is  made  that  there  is  not  a  single  French  family 
without  mourning.  -The  sufferings  of  Belgium  and 
Poland  are  known  to  all.  Russia,  Austria,  and  all  the 
other  countries  have  their  share,  and  in  Great  Britain, 
too,  the  relatives  of  many  who  have  gone  to  the  war 
are  mourning  their  dead. 

Men  are  often  drawn  together  by  a  common  sor- 
row. As  the  shadows  of  death  draw  ever  deeper 
over  the  whole  of  Europe,  is  it  asking  too  much  that 
enmity  and  jealousy,  revenge  and  passion  may  leave 
the  hearts  of  men,  and  that  their  thoughts  be  directed 
toward  the  blessings  of  peace?  [A  peace  which  is  won 
by  the  humiliation  of  one  side  or  the  other  will  carry, 
in  its  very  nature,  the  germ  of  future  hatred  and 
war,  but  a  peace  which  is  born  of  a  common  sorrow 
and  is  the  result  of  mutual  good  will  may  last,  and 
will  allow  Europe,  yes  the  whole  world,  to  heal  its 
wounds?/ 


CHAPTER  IX 


ENGLISH   MILITARISM,  BELGIUM,  AND  ITALY 

IT  HAS  been  stated  by  the  friends  of  Great  Britain 
that  the  AlHes  are  fighting  to  put  down  miHtarism, 
and  to  cast  out  from  the  world  the  spirit  of  barbarous 
warfare.  Lord  Kitchener  has  been  placed  in  charge 
of  the  British  War  Office,  and  has  been  eulogized 
both  at  home  and  abroad.  The  picture  of  this  great 
general  is,  however,  incomplete  unless  one  remembers 
what  his  colleague,  the  first  lord  of  the  Admiralty, 
Winston  Spencer  Churchill,  said  of  him.  In  his 
River  War,  page  211,  Mr.  Churchill  said: 

From  the  Khalifa's  house  I  repaired  to  the  Mahdi's 
tomb.  The  reader's  mind  is  possibly  familiar  with  its 
shape  and  architecture.  It  was  much  damaged  by  the 
shell  fire.  The  apex  of  the  conical  dome  had  been  cut 
off.  One  of  the  small  cupolas  was  completely  destroyed. 
The  dome  itself  had  one  enormous  and  several  smaller 
holes  smashed  in  it;  the  bright  sunlight  streamed  through 
these  and  displayed  the  interior.  Everything  was  wrecked. 
Still  it  was  possible  to  distinguish  the  painted  brass  rail- 
ings round  the  actual  sarcophagus,  and  the  stone  beneath 
which  the  body  presumably  lay.  This  place  had  been  for 
more  than  ten  years  the  most  sacred  and  holy  thing  that 
the  people  of  the  Soudan  knew.  Their  miserable  lives  had 
perhaps  been  brightened,  perhaps  in  some  way  ennobled, 
by  the  contemplation  of  something  which  they  did  not 
quite  understand,  but  which  they  believed  exerted  a  pro- 
tecting influence.  It  had  gratified  that  instinctive  desire 
for  the  mystic  which  all  human  creatures  possess,  and 
which  is  perhaps  the  strongest  reason  for  believing  in  a 
progressive  destiny  and  a  future  state.  By  Sir  [now 
Lord]  H.  Kitchener's  orders  the  tomb  has  been  profaned 

112 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy     113 

and  razed  to  the  ground.  The  corpse  of  the  Mahdi  was 
dug  up,  the  head  was  separated  from  the  body  and,  to 
quote  the  official  explanation,  "  preserved  for  future  dis- 
posal "  —  a  phrase  which  must  in  this  case  be  understood 
to  mean  that  it  was  passed  from  hand  to  hand  till  it 
reached  Cairo.  Here  it  remained,  an  uninteresting 
trophy,  until  the  affair  came  to  the  ears  of  Lord  Cromer, 
who  ordered  it  to  be  immediately  reinterred  at  Wady 
Haifa.  The  limbs  and  trunk  were  flung  into  the  Nile. 
Such  was  the  chivalry  of  the  conquerors !  ...  if  such 
conduct  is  to  be  characteristic  of  its  [the  British  in  Egypt] 
Government,  then  it  would  be  better  if  Gordon  had  never 
given  his  life,  nor  Kitchener  won  his  victories ! 

On  page  378,  Mr.  Churchill  continues: 

The  stern  and  unpitying  spirit  of  the  commander  was 
communicated  to  his  troops,  and  the  victories  which  marked 
the  progress  of  the  River  War  [April,  1896,  to  February, 
1899]  were  accompanied  by  acts  of  barbarity  not  always 
justified  even  by  the  harsh  customs  of  savage  conflicts. 

Another  passage  on  page  445  may  explain  why 
those  who  have  friends  and  relatives  fighting  on  the 
German  side  have  condemned  the  Allies  for  import- 
ing their  African  black  troops  into  Europe.  He  says 
of  a  certain  battle  when  Kitchener  had  decided  to 
modify  his  cruel  warfare: 

The  Arabic  word  for  quarter,  "  Aman!"  was  explained 
to  the  British  brigade.  Of  course  in  actual '  assault  very 
few  were  spared.  .  .  .  Men  do  not  come  across  the  open 
and  let  themselves  be  shot  at  for  nothing.  The  black 
soldiers  were  beyond  regular  control. 

By  the  side  of  this  pen  picture  of  Lord  Kitchener, 
drawn  by  his  colleague,  in  charge  of  the  British  navy, 
one  should  place  the  picture  of  Mr.  Churchill  himself, 
drawn  by  A.  G.  Gardiner  in  his  delightful  portrait  gal- 
lery called  Pillars  of  Society.     This  book,  first  pub- 


114  Germany's  Point  of  View 

lished  a  year  ago,  and  republished  in  January,  19 14, 
was  reviewed  in  the  Transcript  on  October  14  last. 
It  is  accessible  to  all  readers,  wherefore  a  few  quo- 
tations may  suffice: 

With  his  abnormal  thirst  for  sensation,  he  combines 
an  unusual  melodramatic  instinct.  He  is  always  uncon- 
sciously playing  a  part  —  an  heroic  part.  .  .  .  Hence  that 
tendency  to  exaggerate  a  situation  which  is  so  character- 
istic of  him.  .  .  .  Hence  his  horrific  picture  of  the  Ger- 
man menace.  He  believes  it  all  because  his  mind  once 
seized  with  an  idea  works  with  enormous  velocity  round 
it,  intensifies  it,  enlarges  it,  makes  it  shadow  the  whole 
sky.  In  the  theatre  of  his  mind  it  is  always  the  hour 
of  fate  and  the  crack  of  doom.  .  .  . 

Behind  all  his  actions,  however  sudden  or  headlong, 
there  is  the  calculation  of  a  singularly  daring  and  far- 
sighted  mind  —  a  mind  that  surveys  the  field  with  the  eye 
of  the  strategist,  weighs  the  forces,  estimates  the  posi- 
tions and,  when  the  hour  has  come,  strikes  with  deadly 
sureness  at  the  vulnerable  place.  "  Keep  your  eye  on 
Churchill,"  should  be  the  watchword  of  these  days.  Re- 
member, he  is  a  soldier  first,  last,  and  always.  He  will 
write  his  name  big  on  our  future.  Let  us  take  care  he 
does  not  write  it  in  blood ! 

At  about  the  same  date  in  19 13  when  these  words 
were  written  concerning  one  member  of  the  present 
British  Government,  another  member — Sir  Edward 
Grey  —  held  a  conversation  with  the  Belgian  minister 
in  which  he  touched  upon  a  subject  which  is  para- 
mount today,  Belgian  neutrality.  Sir  Edward  has 
published  in  November,  1914,  through  the  press,  a 
record  of  this  conversation,  which  is  exceedingly  inter- 
esting from  several  points  of  view.  First,  he  refers 
to  the  "apprehension  in  Belgium  that  England  would 
be  the  first  to  violate  Belgian  neutrality.''  This 
proves  what  Germany  has  maintained,  that  it  had  been 
current  gossip  in  Europe  for  some  time  that,  in  case 


English  Militarism,  Belgium ,  and  Italy     115 

of  a  war,  one  or  the  other  of  the  great  powers  would 
invade   Belgium.     In   other   words,   the   invasion   of 
Belgium  in  this  war  did  not  come  as  a  surprise.     It 
had  been  anticipated  in  all  quarters. 
Sir  Edward  then  goes  on  to  state, 

that  he  did  not  think  this  apprehension  could  have  had  its 
origin  in  any  act  of  Great  Britain,  and  he  was  sure  that 
England  would  not  be  the  first  to  violate  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  the  Bel- 
gian minister  had  spoken  of  the  danger  threatening 
the  preservation  of  the  neutrality  of  his  country  from 
the  military  "  conversations ''  between  the  Belgian  au- 
thorities and  the  British  war  office  through  Lieutenant 
Colonel  Bamardiston.  These  had  placed  England  in 
the  possession  of  the  military  secrets  of  Belgium.  As 
long  as  the  two  countries  were  on  good  terms  there 
was  no  danger.  During  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years, 
however,  national  friendships  in  Europe  were  not  very 
stable,  and  in  1913  Belgium  apparently  had  begun  to 
mistrust  England.  She  felt  so  strongly  on  this  point 
that  she  ordered  her  minister  in  London  to  communi- 
cate this  apprehension  to  Sir  Edward  Grey. 

This  is  very  important,  because  Germany's  ex- 
pressed belief  that  France  and  Great  Britain  had  made 
plans  to  enter  Belgium  has  been  brushed  aside  as  a 
poor  excuse,  due  to  an  insincere  desire  on  her  part  to 
defend  her  own  action.  If,  however,  Belgium  in  1913 
had  heard  enough  rumors  and  received  enough  infor- 
mation, probably  through  her  secret  agents,  to  make 
her  apprehensive  lest  "  England  would  be  the  first  to 
violate  Belgium  neutrality,''  the  presumption  is  estab- 
lished that  Germany  too  was  sincere  when  she  said 


ii6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

she  believed  that  plans  had  been  made  by  her  oppo- 
nents to  invade  Belgium. 

The  most  important  part,  however,  of  Sir  Edward's 
latest  publication  is  contained  in  the  last  paragraph, 
which  reads: 

For  us  to  be  the  first  to  violate  it  and  to  send  troops  into 
Belgium  would  be  to  give  Germany,  for  instance,  justifica- 
tion for  sending  troops  into  Belgium.  Also,  what  we  de- 
/  sired,  in  the  case  of  Belgium  as  in  that  of  other  neutral 
countries,  was  that  their  neutrality  should  be  respected,  and 
as  long  as  it  is  not  violated  by  any  other  power  we  should 
certainly  not  send  troops  ourselves  into  their  territory. 

Let  the  reader  re-read  this  paragraph  carefully.  It 
is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first  contemplates  the 
possibility  of  England  being  "  the  first  to  violate ''  Bel- 
gian neutrality,  and  dismisses  it  as  improbable  because 
*'it  would  give  Germany,  for  instance,  justification  for 
sending  troops  into  Belgium.''  There  is  not  one  word 
of  horror  at  the  very  thought  of  England's  being 
suspected  of  doing  such  a  terrible  thing  as  violating 
the  neutrality  of  Belgium.  In  view  of  the  attitude 
taken  by  the  British  Government  in  this  war,  one 
is  astonished  at  not  hearing  Sir  Edward  Grey  say: 
"  Sir,  your  suspicion  is  an  insult.  The  violation  of 
Belgian  neutrality  would  be  a  *  heinous  crime,'  and  I 
am  a  gentleman."  This  is  what  a  gentleman  would 
say  in  private  life  if  he  were  suspected  of  contem- 
plating an  act  which  he  holds  to  be  criminally  wrong 
and  immoral.  He  would  not  defend  himself  against 
such  an  imputation  by  pointing  out  that  it  would  be 
against  his  interests  to  commit  the  deed. 

The  second  part  of  the  above  paragraph  is  interest- 
ing because  of  the  words  "  in  the  case  of  Belgium,  as 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy     117 

in  that  of  other  neutral  countries."  They  indicate  that 
Sir  Edward  Grey,  Hke  the  other  European  statesmen, 
made  no  distinction,  before  August,  19 14,  between  the 
neutraHty  of  Belgium  and  that  of  other  countries. 
This,  too,  has  been  a  contention  of  Germany. 

In  this  connection,  however,  it  is  valuable  to  remem- 
ber, first,  that  Great  Britain  was  the  only  one  of  the 
great  Powers  which  has  not  ratified  The  Hague  Con- 
vention concerning  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutral 
Powers  in  case  of  war  on  land;  and,  secondly,  that, 
according  to  the  standards  of  The  Times  itself,  the 
military  conversations  between  the  Belgian  general 
staff  and  the  British  War  Office,  through  Lieutenant 
Colonel  Barnardiston,  constituted  a  breach  of  Belgian 
neutrality. 

This  latest  publication  of  Sir  Edward  Grey,  there- 
fore, has  proved  the  reasonableness  of  several  German 
contentions. 

1.  The  possibility  of  an  invasion  of  Belgium  in  case 
of  war  was  current  gossip  in  Europe  for  some  time 
prior  to  19 14. 

2.  Rumors  and  secret  information  concerning  a  con- 
templated invasion  of  Belgium  by  England  were  so 
strong  in  19 13  that  the  Belgium  Government  felt 
obliged  to  discuss  the  matter  with  Sir  Edward  Grey. 

3.  The  thought  of  an  English  invasion  of  Belgium 
was  not  indignantly  repudiated  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  as 
impossible  in  19 13,  but  gently  denied  by  him  as  unwise. 

4.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in  1913,  rated  the  neutrality 
of  Belgium  as  of  the  same  kind  as  that  of  other  neu- 
tral states. 

5.  The  reputation  of  Great  Britain  for  fair  and  hon- 


Ii8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

orable  dealings  among  her  European  neighbors  was  so 
sHght  in  1913  that  httle  Belgium  felt  herself  more 
menaced  by  Great  Britain  than  by  any  other  power. 

Almost  the  same  cable  which  brought  the  news  of 
this  remarkable  communication  from  Sir  Edward  Grey 
announced  a  statement  by  the  former  Italian  prime 
minister,  Giovanni  Giolitti,  who  thought  it  was  neces- 
sary to  emphasize  that  Italy  always  had  been  loyal  to 
treaties,  and  in  this  connection  added: 

I  feel  it  my  duty  to  recall  a  precedent  showing  how 
correct  was  the  interpretation  of  the  alliance  by  the 
Government  when  the  conflict  began.  During  the  Balkan 
War,  on  August  9,  1913,  being  absent  from  Rome,  I  re- 
ceived the  following  telegram  from  the  late  Marquis  de 
San  Giuliano :  'Austria  has  communicated  with  us  and 
Germany  that  it  has  been  the  intention  to  act  against 
Servia,  defining  such  action  as  defensive  and  hoping  for 
an  application  of  the  casus  foederis  (i.  e.,  a  case  where 
the  treaty  between  the  three  nations  would  come  into 
force)  by  the  Triple  Alliance,  which  I  consider  inappli- 
cable. I  am  trying  to  agree  with  Germany  concerning 
efforts  to  prevent  Austrian  action,  but  it  may  be  necessary 
to  say  clearly  that  we  do  not  consider  such  eventual  action 
as  defensive,  and,  therefore,  do  not  think  that  there  exists 
a  casus  foederis.  Please  send  a  telegram  saying  whether 
you  approve." 

I  ans-yJvered:  "If  Austria  goes  against  Servia,  a  casus 
foederis  evidently  does  not  exist.  It  is  an  action  she  accom- 
plishes on  her  own  account.  It  is  not  defensive,  because 
nobody  thinks  of  attacking  her.  It  is  necessary  to  declare 
this  to  Austria  in  the  most  formal  manner,  hoping  that 
Germany  will  act  to  dissuade  Austria  from  a  very  danger- 
ous adventure." 

This  was  done,  and  our  interpretation  of  the  treaty  was 
accepted  by  our  allies,  our  friendly  relations  not  being  in 
the  least  disturbed.  Thus  the  declaration  of  neutrality 
made  at  the  beginning  of  the  conflict  is  according  to  the 
spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  treaties.  I  recall  this  incident 
from  a  wish  to  demonstrate  the  complete  loyalty  of  Italy 
before  the  eyes  of  Europe. 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy    119 

This  statement  has  given  rise  to  the  following  very 
natural  deduction  in  the  American  press: 

The  historic  significance  of  Giolitti's  disclosure  is 
great,  but  not  greater  than  its  significance  for  the  imme- 
diate future.  Such  a  disclosure  is  not  made  by  an  ex- 
Premier  in  support  of  his  successor's  policy  of  armed 
neutrality  if  that  neutrality  is  expected  to  be  long  con- 
tinued. Giolitti  spoke  directly  against  Germany  and 
Austria,  and  Italy  anticipates  the  completion  of  its  military 
preparations  by  the  i6th  inst. 

This  is,  undoubtedly,  the  inference  which  the  Eng- 
lish press  bureau  wished  us  to  draw.  The  despatch 
is  marked  as  "  delayed  in  transmission,"  and  was 
finally  sent  on  the  very  day  on  which  the  report  of  the 
fall  of  Lodz,  and  of  the  victorious  advance  of  the 
German  troops  toward  Warsaw  was  received.  The 
suggested  entry  of  Italy  into  the  war  on  the  side  of 
the  Allies  may  have  been  meant  to  compensate  friends 
for  the  Russian  failure  in  Poland. 

In  this  connection  it  is  very  interesting  to  note  that 
an  earlier  statement  by  Giovanni  Giolitti  was  not  for- 
warded by  the  British  censor,  or  at  least  received  no 
currency  in  the  American  press.  In  it  Giolitti  refers 
humorously  to  the  ofifer  of  the  Allies  to  give  Italy 
Trent,  Triest,  and  Dalmatia,  and  the  ofifer  of  Count 
Andrassy  to  .  give  Italy  Nizza,  Savoy,  Corsica,  and 
Malta,  and  says  that  neither  of  the  generous  donors 
has  the  gift  he  promises  in  his  pocket.    He  concludes : 

No ;  Italy  is  not  wavering  like  Buridan^s  donkey  between 
two  bundles  of  hay.  She  does  not  want  either  the  one  or 
the  other  gift.  We  shall  certainly  not  be  guilty  of  deceit 
and  disloyalty,  nor  attack  our  friends  from  behind.  Not 
even  a  Machiavelli  would  have  fallen,  in  his  doctrine  of 
the  safety  of  the  state,  to  such  a  depth  of  cynicism.  The 
honor  of  a  nation  is  of  more  worth  than  anything  else. 


I20  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Men  live  not  by  bread  alone,  but  also  by  dignity  and  honor. 
We  do  not  know  whether  the  Triple  Alliance  is  still  valu- 
able for  us,  but  we  cannot  forget  the  benefits  it  has  brought 
us  through  three  decades.  There  are  indications  that  our 
country  is  as  little  eager  for  a  war  against  Austria  as  for 
a  war  in  company  with  Austria.  Possibly  the  Repub- 
licans and  Nationalists  may  wish  a  w^ar.  We  certainly 
do  not.  Our  country  as  a  whole  does  not  want  to  have 
any  kind  of  a  war.  It  needs  peace.  One  war,  the  Lybian 
War,  was  quite  enough  for  us.  We  do  not  know  what 
victory  might  bring  us,  but  we  do  know  that  defeat  would 
mean  the  ruin  of  Italy. 

This  sounds  very  different  from  the  despatch  trans- 
mitted, after  some  delay,  by  the  British  Press  Bureau. 
Anybody  familiar  v^ith  Giolitti's  style  and  his  fond- 
ness for  pithy  phrases  cannot  help  suspecting  that  his 
later  remarks  were  re-written  and  emasculated  to 
serve  a  definite  purpose. 

In  view  of  his  earlier  statement,  the  last  phrase 
cabled  over  from  London  gains  in  importance,  and 
may  convey  a  dift'erent  meaning  from  the  one  which 
the  friends  of  the  Allies  wished  to  give  it.  Giolitti  is 
quoted  as  having  said  that  he  wished  "  to  demonstrate 
the  complete  loyalty  of  Italy  before  the  eyes  of 
Europe.''  This  can  only  mean  loyalty  to  the  friends, 
Germany  and  Austria,  whose  assistance  had  "brought 
benefits''  to  Italy  through  three  decades. 

Nobody  here  can  foretell  the  future,  or  know  what 
Italy  will  do,  but  if  one  wishes  to  conclude  from 
Giolitti's  speech  that  Italy  will  "attack  her  friends 
from  behind"  and  join  the  Allies,  one  is  pre- 
mature. 

Contrary  to  the  general  understanding  in  America, 
Italian  public  opinion  is  by  no  means  hostile  to  Ger- 
many.   Austria  has  never  been  popular  in  Italy,  while 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy     121 

the  Italians  individually  have  always  maintained  cor- 
dial feelings  toward  the  other  great  Latin  nation,  the 
French.  And  who  would  not?  The  Germans  them- 
selves would  have  liked  nothing  better  than  to  be  on 
good  terms  with  France,  from  whom  an  unfortunate 
historical  inheritance  has  kept  them  estranged. 

As  regards  England,  unless  all  the  ascertainable 
evidence  is  at  fault,  this  nation  is  rather  unpopular 
in  Italy.  Her  dealings  in  Egypt,  and  her  general 
policy  in  the  Near  East  and  Africa,  that  is,  at  the 
very  door  of  Italy,  have  not  won  her  an  enviable 
reputation. 

Gratitude  toward  Germany,  and  dislike  of  Austria, 
on  the  one  hand,  are  balanced  by  warm  feelings  for 
the  French  people,  and  distrust  of  England,  on  the 
other  hand.  The  restless  desire  for  war,  moreover, 
of  the  anti-government  parties  is  held  in  check  by  the 
wishes  of  the  Government  to  be,  as  Giolitti  puts  it, 
'*  loyal  to  our  friends,  and  to  maintain  the  honor  and 
dignity  of  the  country." 

Much  has  been  made  of  the  disappointment  felt, 
and,  doubtless,  often  expressed,  by  many  Germans 
early  in  this  war  at  the  refusal  of  Italy  to  join  her 
allies  of  the  Dreibund.  People  have  entirely  forgot- 
ten that  for  years  the  most  thoughtful  men  of  Ger- 
many have  reckoned  with  just  this  possibility,  that  a 
war  might  take  place,  in  which  Italy  would  not  join. 
Paul  Rohrbach,  in  that  wonderful  book,  Der  Deutsche 
Gedanke  in  der  Welt,  which  the  Macmillan  Company 
have  issued  under  the  title  German  World  Policies, 
said,  in  1912,  that  in  any  estimate  of  Germany's 
strength  in  a  future  war,  it  would  be  unwise  to  include 
Italy,  because  Italian  public  opinion  was  uncertain,  and 


122  Germany's  Point  of  View 

it  was  not  possible  to  drive  the  country  into  a  war 
against  its  wishes. 

The  incident,*  moreover,  to  which  Giolitti  referred 
in  his  latest  statement  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  the 
German  Government  understood  Italy's  position.  All 
talk,  therefore,  of  any  danger  threatening  Italy  in  the 
event  of  a  German  victory  is  wide  of  the  mark.  The 
German  Government  cannot,  and  the  German  people 
do  not,  harbor  ideas  of  revenge  toward  Italy.  The 
Germans  as  a  whole  are  a  friendly  people,  who  wish 
to  be  on  good  terms  with  their  fellowmen.  If  Ger- 
many should  be  successful  in  this  struggle  against 
odds  such  as  have  probably  never  before  been  en- 
countered by  any  nation,  a  large  part  of  the  people 
of  this  world  will  harbor  no  friendly  thoughts  toward 
her.  A  war  of  revenge  against  Italy  could  bring  her 
nothing  but  the  enmity  also  of  the  Italians.  There 
would  be  absolutely  nothing  she  could  gain. 

For  this  reason,  nobody,  probably  either  in  Ger- 
many or  in  Italy,  considers  the  loose  talk  of  revenge 
seriously.  But  since  Italy  has  nothing  to  fear  from 
a  victorious  Germany,  if  she  remains  neutral,  she  has 
no  incentive  whatever  to  run  the  risks  of  war  on  the 
side  of  the  Allies.  If  the  Allies  should  be  success- 
ful, it  seems  incredible  that  they  should  wish  to  punish 
Italy  for  not  having  "'attacked  her  friends  from 
behind,''  as  Giolitti  says.  If,  however,  they  should 
attempt  to  do  this,  America  would  surely  not  sit  idly 
by  and  see  Italy  suffer  for  having  kept  her  pledge, 
when  the  very  fact  that  Germany  was  believed  to  have 


*  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  incident  see  the  British 
Annual  Register  for  1913,  in  which  the  whole  credit  for 
having  averted  a  European  war  is  given  to  Emperor  William  11. 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy     123 

broken  her  treaty  obligations  has  turned  so  many  sin- 
cere and  honest  Americans  into  bitter  enemies  of 
Germany. 

This  enmity  at  first  was  so  severe  that  nobody, 
in  the  beginning,  could  have  foretold  the  change  of 
opinion  which  would  take  place.  The  writer,  in  De- 
cember, 19 14,  was  in  a  district  of  northern  Maine, 
where  the  population  to  a  man  seemed  to  favor  Ger- 
many. The  wonderfully  gallant  fight  which  Germany 
is  making  against  almost  incredible  odds  had  taken 
hold  of  their  imagination.  They  were  not  so  much 
interested  in  the  claims  and  counter-claims  as  to  who 
began  the  war,  for,  with  the  hard  common  sense  of 
country  communities,  they  knew  that  it  takes  two  to 
start  a  fight.  Their  general  admiration,  moreover,  for 
the  industry  and  personal  worth  of  the  Germans,  which 
their  newspapers  had  given  them  during  the  past 
twenty  years,  could  not  be  suddenly  superseded  by  the 
accounts  in  the  same  papers  of  the  unspeakable  bad- 
ness of  the  Germans.  They  preferred  to  believe  the 
accumulative  evidence  of  years  rather  than  the  pas- 
sionate appeals  to  hatred  suddenly  emanating  from 
England.  And,  after  all,  these  questions  were  far  too 
complex  to  be  interesting.  The  one  interesting  fact 
was  that  a  comparatively  small  state  dared  to  fight 
the  Russian  giant,  and  at  the  same  time  France,  Bel- 
gium, and  England,  with  Canada,  Australia,  India, 
Egypt,  and  South  Africa,  and,  in  addition,  Japan; 
and  not  only  fight  them,  but  also  hold  them  in  check, 
and  do  so  with  a  tair  prospect  of  ultimate  success. 

An  additional  point  of  interest  in  Giolitti's  state- 
ment deserves  attention.  It  seems  that  Austria's  pa- 
tience  with  her  troublesome  neighbor,   Servia,   was 


124  Germany's  Point  of  View 

almost  exhausted  as  early  as  August  9,  1913,  but  that 
Germany,  at  the  request  of  Italy,  was  able  to  restrain 
her  from  taking  a  dangerous  step.  Only  those  who 
are  familiar  with  the  character  of  Servia  —  and,  for- 
tunately, the  report  of  the  Balkan  Commission  of  the 
Carnegie  Peace  Foundation  supplies  an  impartial  por- 
trayal of  the  wretched  character  of  this  state  —  can 
have  any  idea  of  what  Austria  has  had  to  suffer,  and, 
consequently,  of  how  iiard  Germany  had  to  work  to 
restrain  her.  From  Giolitti's  own  words,  it  appears 
that  Austria  felt  that  she  would  be  merely  defending 
herself  if  she  should  proceed  against  Servia.  Thanks 
to  Giolitti,  the  world  now  knows  of  a  definite  instance 
when  Germany  put  a  restraining  hand  on  her  ally, 
Austria. 

Some  may  feel  that  Germany  should  have  done  the 
same  again  in  1914,  but  they  forget  the  horror  at  the 
murder  of  the  archduke  and  his  wife,  and  the  deter- 
mination of  Austria  that  the  hour  had  arrived  when 
Servian  plottings  must  cease,  and  that  this  was  a  case 
of  life  or  death  for  Austria. 

Political  murder,  strangely  enough,  in  the  eyes  of 
many  good  persons,  is  a  shade  less  reprehensible  than 
ordinary  murder.  They  should,  however,  remember 
that  the  Servian  assassins  did  not  spare  the  Countess 
of  Hohenberg,  either.  She  was  not  of  royal  blood, 
and  for  her  sake  the  archduke  had  been  obliged  to 
renounce  the  right  of  succession  for  his  children. 
Think  of  these  orphaned  children,  bereft  at  one  stroke 
of  both  father  and  mother !  And  remember,  further, 
that  the  archduke  himself  was  not  murdered  because 
he  was  cruel  or  autocratic,  or  the  tool  of  reaction- 
aries.    On  the  contrary,  he  was  murdered  because 


English  Militarism,  Belgium,  and  Italy     125 

he  was  a  strong  and  liberal  man,  under  whose  guidance 
it  was  assumed  Austria  would  develop  into  a  vigorous 
and  thoroughly  democratic  state. 

If  one  considers  all  these  facts,  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  German  chancellor,  who 
said  that  Germany  had  advised  forbearance  to  Aus- 
tria, so  far  as  was  compatible  with  her  duties  as  a 
faithful  ally. 

It  is  not  often  that  the  British  censor  passes  so 
many  despatches  in  one  or  two  days  which  contain 
the  very  information  with  which  to  strengthen  the 
German  case.  Some  critics  have  found  fault  with  the 
pro-German  writers  in  this  country  because  they  no- 
where furnished  absolutely  complete  proofs.  The 
writers  are  very  conscious  of  this  defect,  but  it  is 
not  their  fault  that  insufficient  information  is  per- 
mitted to  reach  America.  The  best  they  can  do  is 
to  call  attention  to  individual  facts,  and  to  point  out 
how  these  facts  seem  to  dovetail  together,  and  how 
they  make  the  case  of  Germany,  as  they  see  it, 
probable. 


CHAPTER  X 

IS  THE  ENGLISH   NEWS  OF  BELGIUM  RELIABLE? 

THE  Berne  Daily  News  of  November  19,   19 14, 
contained  this  item: 

The  German  civil  administration  is  entering  into  per- 
sonal negotiations  with  the  most  prominent  Belgian  manu- 
facturers with  a  view  to  the  speedy  resumption  of  work 
in  the  factories.  It  has  offered  its  assistance  and  has 
promised  to  take  all  necessary  steps  to  expedite  matters. 
Its  chief  concern  is  to  provide  work  for  the  laborers. 

The  distribution  of  food  among  the  populace  is  being 
carried  on  under  German  supervision.  There  is  at  present 
no  famine,  although  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  speak  of 
normal  conditions.  Salt  is  imported  from  Germany  in 
huge  quantities.  And  in  the  country  as  a  whole  several 
hundred  thousand  poor  people  are  fed  daily  at  the  expense 
of  the  German  Government. 

The  latter  statement  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  a 
photograph  in  the  Illustrated  Courier  de  Guerre,  No. 
4,  which  contains  as  its  first  picture  a  view  of  '*  Ger- 
man soldiers  distributing  food  to  the  poor  people  of 
Brussels/' 

This  account  in  a  Swiss  paper  and  this  picture, 
which  is  obviously  not  faked,  are  somewhat  at  vari- 
ance with  the  bulk  of  the  news  of  Belgian  conditions 
and  German  behavior  there  which  have  reached  Amer- 
ica. Unfortunately  most  pro-German  information 
reaches  America  by  mail  only,  and  when  it  has  lost 
its  "news'*  value.  Our  daily  papers  are  purveyors 
of  news,  and  nobody  can  blame  them  severely  for 
refusing  to  warm  over  cold  dishes.     Occasionally  an 

126 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable  f    127 

early  "canard"  will  be  denied,  but  one  can  hardly 
expect  an  editor  to  shout  it  from  the  housetops  that 
he  had  "  featured "  an  erroneous  story  several  weeks 
ago.  The  denial,  therefore,  appears  in  a  paragraph 
somewhere  after  the  day's  harvest  of  information 
cabled  over  from  London.  There  it  is  not  seen  by 
everybody,  while  the  erroneous  first  impression  con- 
tinues to  sadden  the  hearts  even  of  those  who  would 
not  like  to  condemn  Germany  unheard. 

People  who  wish  to  be  on  the  safe  side  should  real- 
ize this,  and  instead  of  crediting  all  stories  should 
believe  implicitly  only  those  which  are  officially  con- 
firmed. Without  attempting  to  discuss  here  all  the 
stories  detrimental  to  the  good  name  of  Germany, 
which  people  who  know  Germany  have  recognized  as 
erroneous  from  the  first,  a  few  may  be  mentioned  as 
characteristic  of  many  others. 

One  of  the  best  authenticated  reports  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  great  war  was  based  on  the  addresses 
and  discussions  in  the  British  Parliament  early  in 
August.  It  there  appeared  that  while  Sir  Edward 
Grey  had  worked  hard  to  preserve  peace,  the  German 
Emperor  had  failed  to  do  anything.  It  now  is  seen 
from  a  long  letter  by  Fred  C.  Conybeare  of  Oxford 
to  the  Nation  (New  York,  December  10)  that  this 
was  not  the  case.    He  says : 

I  need  not  add  that  our  English  Parliament  was,  at  the 
moment  it  declared  war,  unaware  of  this  exchange  of 
telegrams  between  the  Kaiser  and  the  Czar,  and  there  was 
nothing  before  them  to  m.odify  the  opinion  that  Germany 
had  been  throughout  as  nakedly  aggressive  as  her  ally. 

Mr.  Conybeare  does  not  state  whether  Sir  Edward 
Grey  intentionally  failed  to  lay  these  telegrams  before 


128  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Parliament,  but  he  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  the 
opinion  of  Parliament  was  based  on  insufficient  infor- 
mation. After  reading  his  whole  letter  one  concludes 
that,  in  his  view,  the  vote  of  Parliament  might  have 
been  the  same,  but  that  even  in  that  case 'the  feelings 
toward  Germany  would  have  been  different.  He  dis- 
cusses this  correspondence,  which  had  been  withheld 
from  Parliament,  and  comes  to  the  conclusion,  (i), 
that  Emperor  William  knew  nothing  of  the  Austrian 
ultimatum  until  after  it  had  been  sent;  (2),  that  he 
attempted  ''on  the  three  days,  July  29-31,  to  avert 
war''  ;  (3),  that  the  Kaiser  had  virtually  obtained 
these  terms  (viz. :  terms  which  would  have  prevented 
war)  from  Franz  Joseph  on  July  31,  when  he  learned 
that  Russia  had  mobilized  her  entire  army,  not  only 
against  Austria,  but  also  against  himself  as  well. 
Forthwith  he  wired  and  reproached  the  Czar  with 
this,  that  having  sought  and  obtained  his  mediation, 
he  yet  was  at  the  same  time  frustrating  his  efforts  for 
peace.  The  Czar  answers  that  he  ''appraises  very 
highly ''  his  "  dear  cousin's  position  as  mediator,"  but 
that  he  had  decided  five  days  before  on  the  military 
measures  objected  to  by  way  of  defense  against  the 
preparations  of  Austria.  The  excuse  seems  to  me  a 
little  lame,  and  I  think  the  Czar  should  have  pledged 
himself  at  once  to  stay  his  mobilization  against  Ger- 
many, and  give  the  Kaiser's  attempt  at  mediation  time 
to  bear  fruit;  for  it  was  a  method  of  securing  peace 
less  likely  to  offend  Franz  Joseph  than  Sir  Edward 
Grey's  proposal  of  a  round-table  conference  at  which 
Germany,  Italy,  France,  and  England  should  discuss 
his  action  and  sit  in  judgment  on  him.  The  Czar 
anyhow  went  on  with  his  mobilization. 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable?    129 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Conybeare  and  the  Nation  it  must 
be  stated  that  the  tenor  of  his  letter  is  not  pro-German. 
He  is  not  another  Shaw  attacking  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. Far  from  it ;  but  so  much  more  justification 
exists  for  quoting  these  passages  as  proof  of  the  asser- 
tion that  not  only  the  British  Parliament  but  also  the 
American  press  formed  its  first  impressions  on  insuf- 
ficient information. 

Very  few  people  have  the  time  and  the  background 
of  a  previous  accurate  knowledge  of  European  condi- 
tions to  form  their  own  opinions  unassisted  by  the 
confidence  which  they  place  in  this  or  that  leader  or 
in  the  deliberations  of  the  Reichstag  or  of  Parliament. 
It  was,  therefore,  natural  that  many  Americans  should 
have  started  with  the  view  of  the  English  Parliament 
and  have  believed  that  the  German  Emperor  had  made 
no  honest  attempts  to  prevent  war.  When  these  tele- 
grams between  the  Emperor  and  the  Czar  became 
known  in  America,  they  appeared  as  a  belated  en- 
deavor to  excuse  the  Emperor's  inexcusable  inactivity. 
The  case  is  very  different  when  one  appreciates  that 
the  view  of  Parliament  was  based  on  incomplete 
records. 

In  this  case  it  was  the  absence  of  a  bit  of  news 
which  worked  to  the  detriment  of  Germany.  Many 
more  times,  however,  it  has  not  been  the  absence  of 
accurate  information  but  the  superfluity  of  inaccu- 
rate stories  which  has  made  it  difBcult  to  judge  the 
contestants  fairly.  An  excellent  instance  of  this  is 
discussed  by  Professor  F.  W.  Taussig  of  Harvard 
University  in  the  same  number  of  the  Nation  (Decem- 
ber 10).  He  proves  that  the  following  often  quoted 
words  are  apocryphal.     They  have  been   frequently 


130  Germany's  Point  of  View 

attributed  to  Emperor  William  and  have  confirmed 
many  righteous  people  in  their  dislike  of  the  Kaiser, 
who  was  believed  to  have  said  to  his  troops : 

Remember  that  the  German  people  are  the  chosen 
of  God.  On  me,  on  me  as  the  German  Emperor,  the 
spirit  of  God  has  descended.  I  am  His  weapon,  His 
sword,  and  His  vice  regent.  Woe  to  the  disobedient. 
Death  to  cowards  and  unbelievers. 

Anybody  at  all  familiar  with  the  character  of  the 
men  whom  the  Emperor  was  believed  to  have  thus 
addressed,  and  with  the  tone  of  the  Emperor's  usual 
addresses,  knew,  of  course,  from  the  first  that  a  mis- 
take had  been  made  in  attributing  these  words  to 
William  11.  For  the  majority  of  the  people,  however, 
nothing  short  of  Professor  Taussig's  proof  will  be 
convincing. 

Another  statement  which  has  alienated  the  good 
will  of  many  had  reference  to  a  telegram  which  the 
Emperor  was  said  to  have  addressed  to  the  King  of 
Italy :  "  Conquered  or  conqueror,  I  shall  not  forget 
your  treachery."  Being  a  supposedly  official  docu- 
ment, the  German  Government  took  pains  to  deny 
that  any  such  telegram  had  been  sent.  The  denial 
was  printed  by  many  American  papers,  but  was  prob- 
ably seen  by  only  a  fraction  of  those  who  had  read 
the  original  telegram,  for  this  telegram  had  been 
cabled  from  London  and  been  *'  featured  "  as  an  im- 
portant news  item. 

It  would  be  idle  to  pursue  this  discussion,  for  these 
few  instances  suffice  to  show  that  under  present  con- 
ditions, when  even  the  most  reliable  papers  are  de- 
pendent for  their  news  on  partisan  sources,  the  indi- 
vidual reader  should  refrain   from  being  impressed 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable  f    131 

by  an  item  until  either  his  previous  knowledge  or  an 
official  confirmation  has  given  it  the  authority  which 
in  times  of  peace  the  reputation  of  the  paper  offers 
in  which  it  is  printed. 

Equal  caution  is  advisable  as  regards  the  claims 
made  by  the  various  contestants.  The  New  York 
Times'  publication,  Current  History  of  the  European 
War  (December,  1914,  Vol.  i.  No.  i),  contains  on 
page  201  "A  Reply  to  Professor  Harnack,''  by  some 
British  theologians.  Toward  the  end  of  the  second 
column  we  read : 

All  these  considerations  take  on  a  more  imperative 
cogency  when  the  treaty  rights  of  a  small  people  are 
threatened  by  a  great  world  power.  We  therefore  believe 
that  when  Germany  refused  to  respect  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium,  which  she  herself  had  guaranteed,  Great  Britain 
had  no  option,  either  in  international  law  or  in  Christian 
ethics,  but  to  defend  the  people  of  Belgium. 

This  statement  expresses  the  average  British  point 
of  view,  and  one  which  is  shared  by  most  of  those 
Americans  who  are  pro- Ally.  It  would  not  have  been 
written  if  these  British  theologians  had  known : 

7.  That  their  own  Government  had  given  cause  to 
Belgium,  as  recently  as  one  year  ago,  to  suspect  that 
Great  Britain  would  be  the  first  to  send  troops  into 
Belgium.     (See  Chapter  ix.) 

2.  That  the  action  of  their  own  Government  had 
been  instrumental  in  committing  Belgium  to  negotia- 
tions, which,  according  to  the  London  Times,  itself 
constituted  a  breach  of  neutrality.     (See  Chapter  v.) 

J.  That  their  own  Government  was  on  record  as 
declaring  that  a  treaty  similar  to  the  one  of  1839, 
namely,  the  treaty  of  1867,  guaranteeing  the  neutral- 


132  Germany's  Point  of  View 

ity  of  Luxemburg  bound  them  "neither  legally  nor 
morally"  (which  is  the  equivalent  of  the  British  theo- 
logians^'in  international  law  or  in  Christian  ethics) 
to  come  to  the  defense  of  this  country. 

4.  That  the  official  organ  of  the  British  ministry 
in  1870  actually  suggested  that  Luxemburg,  whose 
neutrality  Great  Britain  had  guaranteed,  should  be 
ceded  to  Germany  instead  of  Alsace-Lorraine. 

In  substantiation  of  the  last  two  points  the  follow- 
ing editorials  from  the  London  Times  may  be  quoted. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Bismarck  had  complained 
of  the  continued  violation  of  the  Luxemburg  neutral- 
ity in  favor  of  France  during  the  autumn  months  of 
1870  and  that  he  had  claimed  the  right  of  disregarding, 
therefore,  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1867.  Great 
Britain  was  desirous  of  preventing  this,  but  equally 
determined  not  to  go  to  war  on  this  account,  for 
she  had  nothing  at  stake  in  Luxemburg  comparable 
to  what  she  believed  to  have  at  stake  in  Belgium. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Germany  did  not  invade  Luxem- 
burg in  1870-71. 

The  London  Times  of  December  14,  1870,  said: 

Prussia,  like  every  other  power  which  signed  the  treaty 
of  1867,  undertook  a  double  obligation,  the  obligation 
which  by  necessity  is  separate,  to  observe  the  neutrality 
of  Luxemburg,  and  the  obligation  which  is  defined  as 
collective,  to  maintain  its  neutrality.  There  is  an  obli- 
gation to  treat  Luxemburg  as  neutral  and  an  obliga- 
tion to  act  collectively  with  others  in  preventing  any 
infringement  of  its  neutrality.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this  collective  guarantee  ?  It  evidently  excludes  the  notion 
that  any  single  state  is  pledged  to  defend  Luxemburg  with 
its  unassisted  power.  [The  reader  will  please  note  these 
words.]  If  the  King-Grand  Duke  called  upon  the  signa- 
tories of  the  treaty  to  fulfil  the  guarantee  of  neutrality 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable?    133 

contained  in  it,  grave  questions  would  undoubtedly  arise. 
We  should  not  dream  of  rushing  single-handed  to  its 
defence.  We  are  under  no  obligation  of  honor  to  do  so 
[the  British  theologians  say:  "Great  Britain  had  no 
option  "]  ;  but  should  have  to  consider  v^ell  before  deter- 
mining what  course  it  behooved  us  to  adopt 

On  December  15,  1870,  the  Times  reiterated  and 
proved  at  length  that  England  was  not  bound  either 
legally  or  morally  to  come  to  the  defense  of  Luxem- 
burg, and  continued: 

Some  indeed  have  gone  so  far  as  to  regret,  for  the  sake 
of  Germany  no  less  than  of  France,  that  Luxemburg 
cannot  be  ceded  as  a  French  province  instead  of  Lorraine  in 
the  French  treaty  of  peace  which  must  come,  however  long 
it  be  delayed ;  and  it  may  not  even  now  be  too  late  to  enter- 
tain this  idea.  At  all  events,  it  cannot  be  our  duty,  in 
default  of  any  obligation,  either  express  or  implied  [the 
Luxemburg  guarantee  of  1867  is  even  stronger  than  the 
Belgium  guarantee  of  1839],  to  defend  its  neutrality 
against  Germany. 

And  on  December  16,  1870,  the  Times  said: 

If  violations  of  neutrality  on  the  part  of  Luxemburg 
be  proved,  the  guarantee  of  its  neutrality,  which  rests  on 
its  preservation  of  neutrality,  falls  to  the  ground. 

Where  in  all  these  editorials  expressing  the  official 
British  view  of  the  case  in  1870  is  there  one  word 
which  bears  out  the  statement  made  by  the  British 
theologians  in  their  reply  to  Professor  Harnack? 
They  may  still  hold  the  high  views  of  British  respon- 
sibility to  which  they  gave  voice,  but  they  must  agree 
that  these  views  are  not  shared  by  the  traditions  of 
their  Government.  You  cannot  at  one  time  elabo- 
rately declare  that  a  treaty  in  which  you  have  guar- 
anteed the  neutrality  of  a  country  is  not  binding  on 


134  Germany's  Point  of  View 

you  either  legally  or  morally,  and  that  "you  should 
not  dream  of  rushing  single-handed  to  its  defence/' 
and  at  another  time  declare  war  on  a  nation  which  is 
already  fighting  two  powerful  foes,  claiming  that  you 
do  so  unwillingly  and  only  because  such  a  treaty  leaves 
you  "no  option,  either  in  international  law  or  in 
Christian  ethics  "  but  to  go  to  war. 

For  some  months  England,  nevertheless,  has  suc- 
ceeded in  making  the  world  believe  that  this  had  been 
the  case.  She  thus  has  appeared  as  the  moral  cham- 
pion of  violated  innocence,  while  Germany  became 
an  object  of  objurgation.  To  this  was  added  the  fact 
that  Germany  pushed  the  war  into  the  hostile  coun- 
try from  the  first,  and  that  all  the  natural  tragedies 
subsequent  to  any  war  were  transacted  on  the  soil 
of  the  people  with  whom  the  world  at  large  was  pre- 
pared to  sympathize.  It  was  quickly  forgotten  that 
only  a  few  years  ago  Belgium  had  been  the  object 
of  equally  bitter  objurgation,  and  that  the  unspeakable 
wicked  atrocities  of  the  Congo  had  made  Belgium 
a  byword  of  bestial  brutality.  Forgotten  were  the 
cartoons  in  which  the  poor  wretches  of  the  Congo 
prayed  for  venegance  on  their  cruel  masters.  For- 
gotten was  the  fact  that  no  patriotism,  no  feeling, 
however  mistaken,  of  doing  right  accounted  for  the 
Congo  crimes,  except  the  craving  for  money  and  ever 
more  money. 

It  is  fortunate  that  we  are  born  with  a  short  mem- 
ory, for  herein  lies  the  hope  that  after  this  tremendous 
war  the  people  of  the  various  nations  will  again 
form  friendships  and  jointly  advance  the  civilization 
of  mankind. 

The  records  of  history,  however,  are  more  exact, 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable  f    135 

arid  the  fact  that  Belgium  has  acquired  a  huge  de- 
pendency in  the  Congo  State,  and  has  changed  from 
the  small  State  of  1839,  which  needed  the  guarantees 
of  her  neighbors,  to  one  of  very  great  wealth,  and  has 
become  a  colonial  empire  of  far  greater  proportions 
than  Germany,  this  fact  will  stare  all  future  historians 
in  the  face.  It  is,  therefore,  doubtful  whether  they 
will  hold  that  the  Belgium  of  1914  was  the  Belgium 
of  1839,  which  was  forced  to  accept  the  decree  of 
perpetual  neutrality.  If  this  should  be  their  verdict, 
no  obliquity  will  be  charged  either  to  Belgium  or 
Great  Britain  for  their  military  conversations  and 
agreements  entered  into  in  1906  and  probably  con- 
tinued since  then.  For  a  powerful  and  sovereign 
State  has  the  right  to  make  military  or  other  arrange- 
ments with  any  nation  it  chooses.  But  as  long  as 
Belgium  was  a  neutral  country,  such  agreements  were 
improper,  and  constituted  a  breach  of  neutrality,  as 
tht  London  Times  itseli  (October  12,  1913)  confessed. 
This  confession,  to  be  sure,  was  made  before  it  had 
become  known  that  records  of  these  agreements  had 
been  found  in  Brussels  by  the  German  Government. 
This  point  is  so  important  that  the  denial  of  the 
existence  of  such  records  by  the  British  and  Belgian 
ambassadors,  or  the  attempt  on  their  part  to  explain 
them  as  harmless,  is  perfectly  natural.  The  follow- 
ing statement,  however,  by  the  Belgian  minister  in 
Washington,  Mr.  Havenith,  quoted  in  the  Nation,  De- 
cember 10,  is  most  remarkable: 


The  Belgian  Government  has  requested  that  these 
alleged  documents  should  be  published  in  full.  Three 
months  have  passed  since  this  alleged  discovery,  but 
nothing  has  appeared. 


136  Germany's  Point  of  View 

To  which  the  Nation  adds : 

What  he  refers  to  is,  of  course,  the  documents  found  in 
Brussels  which  the  Germans  assert  are  proof  that  Belgium 
had  surrendered  her  neutrality  to  England.  That  they  do 
show  anything  of  the  kind,  there  is  not  the  faintest  reason 
to  believe.  ...  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  in  all  this,  that 
the  plea  made  by  Germany  —  last  reiterated  by  the  Im- 
perial Chancellor  in  his  speech  a  few  days  ago  —  is  not 
only  a  plea  in  defence  of  Germany's  conduct,  but  a  charge 
against  Belgium  of  disgraceful  bad  faith.  To  make  such 
a  charge  without  at  least  a  respectable  pretence  of  proving 
it  is  monstrous,  and  really  but  intensifies  the  feeling  of 
Germany's  guilt  in  the  whole  matter. 

The  remarkable  thing  is  that  the  German  Govern- 
ment published  lengthy  extracts  from  the  documents 
found  in  Brussels,  in  the  official  North  German  Ga- 
zette of  October  13,  1914,  first  edition,  where  they 
cover  almost  half  a  page.  Neither  Mr.  Havenith  nor 
the  editor  of  the  Nation  read,  it  would  seem,  the 
official  Gazette  or  any  other  German  paper,  for  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  important  information 
was  reprinted  in  every  German  newspaper.  Before 
the  war,  it  was  not  necessary  for  American  editors 
to  read  German  or  to  have  on  their  staffs  men  familiar 
with  Germany  and  able  to  read  German  papers,  be- 
cause, whatever  we  may  think  of  Englishmen,  their 
sense  of  fairness  never  permitted  them  to  suppress 
the  important  information  of  other  countries  —  albeit 
they  sometimes  colored  it.  American  editors,  there- 
fore, learned  to  rely  on  their  London  news  and  to 
dispense  with  the  expensive  adjuncts  of  men  who 
are  authorities  on  other  countries.  During  the  war, 
however,  it  would  be  asking  too  much  of  England  to 
transmit  not  only  her  own  news  but  also  that  favor- 
able to  Germany  and  detrimental  to  herself.     This 


7^  the  English  News  of  Belgium  Reliable?    137 

observation,  nevertheless,  has  not  yet  appealed  as  natu- 
ral to  many  Americans.  It  is  indeed  difficult  to  doubt 
the  reliability  of  a  source  which  one  has  come  to 
trust  through  the  test  of  many  years.  The  German 
news,  on  the  other  hand,  which  has  been  freely  offered 
in  this  country,  has  not  always  appealed  to  every- 
body. It  is,  however,  to  be  hoped  that  the  editors 
of  the  more  important  American  dailies  and  weeklies 
will  come  to  realize  from  their  actual  experience  that 
under  present  conditions  they  cannot  expect  to  live 
up  to  their  standards  of  justice  unless  they  supplement 
or  check  their  London  news  by  the  perusal  of  at 
least  the  official  German  Gazette. 

The  most  important  documents,  as  published  in  the 
Gazette,  were  found  in  a  portfolio  which  was  in- 
scribed. Intervention  Anglaise  en  Belgique,  There 
was  a  letter  dated  April  10,  1906,  and  addressed  to 
the  Belgian  Minister  of  War,  which  tells  that  the  chief 
of  the  Belgian  general  staff  had  held  several  consul- 
tations with  the  British  military  attache  in  Brussels, 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Bernardiston,  at  the  latter's  re- 
quest. These  two  gentlemen  had  worked  out  a  plan 
of  campaign  of  England  and  Belgium  against  Ger- 
many, for  which  England  was  to  supply  an  expedi- 
tionary force  of  one  hundred  thousand  men.  The 
plan  had  met  the  approval  of  the  chief  of  the  British 
general  staff,  Major  General  Grierson  (now  deceased). 
Other  papers  contained  full  details  of  the  strength 
of  the  various  arms  of  the  British  corps  and  the 
names  of  the  ports  where  the  troops  would  embark 
and  disembark.  There  was  also  an  exact  ''time 
table.''  On  the  strength  of  this  information  the  Bel- 
gian general  staff  prepared  exact  plans  how  and  where 


138  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  troops  should  enter  Belgium,  how  they  should  be 
provisioned,  and  where  they  should  be  quartered. 
These  details  were  carefully  worked  out  in  a  joint 
conference  by  Belgian  and  English  officers.  The  lat- 
ter demanded  that  a  large  number  of  interpreters  and 
Belgian  gendarmes  should  be  placed  at  the  disposal 
of  the  British  troops,  who  were  to  be  furnished  with 
the  necessary  maps.  These  maps  of  Belgium  were 
later  prepared  in  English.  Some  of  them  have  been 
found  and  been  published  in  the  Gazette. 

Dunkirk,  Calais,  and  Boulogne  were  the  ports  where 
the  British  troops  were  to  disembark,  and  from  where 
Belgian  rolling  stock  was  to  transport  them  into  Bel- 
gium. Such  an  arrangement  is  of  course  unthinkable 
without  a  previous  arrangement  also  with  France. 
That  such  an  arrangement  existed  is,  moreover,  proved 
by  the  presence  of  the  French  plan  of  campaign  in 
the  secret  archives  in  Brussels. 

Another  interesting  paper  contains  the  statement  of 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Barnardiston  that  it  was  impos- 
sible at  that  time  to  count  on  the  support  of  Holland. 
He  also  made  the  confidential  announcement  that  the 
British  reserves  would  be  landed  in  Antwerp,  as  soon 
as  the  sea  should  be  swept  clean  of  the  German  ships. 
He  further  urged  on  Belgium  the  advisability  of  es- 
tablishing an  exhaustive  system  of  espionage  in  the 
western  provinces  of  Germany. 

In  addition  to  the  documents  in  the  portfolio  Inter- 
vention Anglaise  en  Belgique,  an  exhaustive  report  of 
Baron  Greindl  to  the  Belgian  Secretary  of  Foreign 
Affairs  has  been  found.  Baron  Greindl  was  Belgian 
ambassador  in  Berlin  for  many  years.  He  called 
attention  in  his  report  to  the  danger  threatening  his 


Is  the  English  News  of  Belgiuni  Reliable?    139 

country  from  its  surrender  to  one  of  the  powers  of 
the  entente.  Baron  Greindl,  in  fact,  seems  to  have 
been  more  afraid  of  a  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality 
by  England  than  by  anybody  else.  And  that  his  view 
was  eventually  accepted  by  his  Government  as  correct 
is  proved  by  the  latest  publication  of  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  which  was  discussed  in  a  previous  chapter. 

The  publication  of  these  papers  in  the  German 
Official  Gazette  was  almost  simultaneous  with  an  arti- 
cle in  the  London  Times,  which  tried  to  absolve  the 
British  Government  from  the  charge  of  negligence 
because  they  had  not  prevented  the  fall  of  Antwerp. 

The  Times  of  October  12,  1914,  said: 

The  last  and  greatest  difficulty  was  the  neutrality  which 
had  been  imposed  upon  Belgium  against  her  will.  A  more 
fatal  gift  was  never  presented  to  any  state.  It  prevented 
her  from  combining  with  the  Netherlands  for  the  defence 
of  their  common  and  inseparable  interests,  and,  worse  than 
that,  it  made  it  impracticable  for  Belgium  to  enter  into 
any  conversation  or  arrangement,  military  or  other,  which 
would  insure  to  her  the  rapid  and  effective  support  of  her 
English  friends.  All  such  ideas,  if  they  were  entertained — 
and  England's  weakness  on  land  threw  them  into  the 
shade — had  to  be  postponed  until  Belgian  territory  was 
violated  by  an  aggressor,  when  in  all  human  probability  the 
aid  desired  would  come  too  late. 

The   documents   from   Brussels,   published  by  the 

German  Government,  refer  to  what  must  be  called  a 

"  conversation  or  arrangement,  military  or  other,''  and 

consequently  constitute,  according  to  the  Times  itself, 

an  infringement  of  Belgian  neutrality.     Since  these 

arrangements  were  made  at  the  request  of^the  British 

military  attache,   it  was   Great  Britain   herself   who 

first  violated  the  treaty  of  1839,  ^^^  tempted  Belgium 

to  commit  an  act  by  which  she  forfeited  all  the  rights 

guaranteed  to  a  neutral  by  international  law. 


CHAPTER  XI 


GERMAN  SOLDIERS 


MOLTKE  wrote  on  November  19,  1880: 
Nobody,  I  think,  can  deny  that  the  general 
softening  of  men's  manners  has  been  followed  by  a 
more  humane  way  of  waging  war.  The  introduction 
in  our  generation  of  universal  service  in  the  army  has 
marked  a  long  step  in  the  direction  of  the  desired  aim, 
for  it  has  brought  also  the  educated  classes  into  the 
army.  The  truth  of  this  statement  is  fully  borne  out 
by  the  reports  which  have  reached  Germany  from  the 
front.  The  following  incident,  reported  by  the  chief 
actor,  may  well  form  the  basis  on  which  to  construct 
a  picture  of  the  German  army  in  the  field  today. 
It  is  a  translation  of  Professor  Hartmann's  own 
account : 

French  Lesson  at  the  Front 

Place — A  stubblefield  in  Belgium. 
Time — Autumn,  19 14. 

After  a  forced  march  in  brigade  formation,  our  regi- 
ment is  resting.  The  guns  have  been  stacked  and  the 
knapsacks  and  cloaks  thrown  off.  The  field  kitchens  are 
drawing  up,  and  company  after  company,  in  excellent 
order,  the  soldiers  are  moving  up  to  receive  their  cups  of 
hot  coffee,  which  has  been  brewed  on  the  march.  The 
brown  liquid  has  revived  their  spirits,  and  in  animated 
groups  the  soldiers  are  lounging  on  the  field,  talking  and 
laughing.    Together  with  my  cronies  (a  district  attorney, 

140 


German  Soldiers  141 

a  teacher  from  Vogelsburg,  and  a  young  fellow  of  eighteen, 
with  blue,  expectant  eyes,  who  has  been  promoted  to  a 
lieutenancy  since  the  war  began)  I  have  occupied  a  shock 
of  sheaves.  Here  we  are  partaking,  like  gormandizers,  of 
our  breakfast,  which  consists  of  army  bread  —  as  dry  as 
it  is  nourishing  —  and  a  slice  of  bacon.  We  are  in  excel- 
lent humor.  Next  to  us,  our  reservists,  splendid  fellows 
from  the  country,  have  lighted  their  pipes  and  are  singing 
the  beautiful  home  and  soldier  songs  which  often  soften 
for  the  time  being  even  the  hardest  hearts  of  warriors. 

"  France,  poor  France,  how  will  you  fare 
When  our  German  militaire 
Visits  you?    Colors:  Black  and  white  and  red. 
Poor  little  France,  it  is  too  bad !  " 

Songs  like  this  are  heard  all  over  the  field,  while  the 
distant  thunder  of  cannon  in  the  west  tells  us  that  our 
comrades  are  in  action.  Everybody  is  elated.  We  have 
just  heard  "officially,"  from  some  staff  officers  who  flew 
by  here  in  an  automobile,  that  our  troops  have  entered 
Brussels;  and  the  cloud  of  smoke  in  the  southeast  can 
mean  only  one  thing,  according  to  our  maps  —  that  the 
fortress  of  Longwy  is  being  successfully  bombarded.  We 
feel  it  in  our  bones  that  today  or  tomorrow  we,  too,  shall 
have  work  to  do. 

"  Professor,"  an  imperious  voice  is  suddenly  shouting 
across  the  field.  "  My  captain,"  I  reply  at  once,  inter- 
rupting my  pleasant  rest,  albeit  somewhat  awkwardly, 
considering  my  weight  and  age  of  thirty-six.  When  I 
stand  at  attention  before  my  captain,  who  is  of  my  age 
and  the  best  of  comrades  after  hours,  while  very  strict 
in  his  official  capacity,  he  says :  "  Professor,  orders  from 
the  chief  of  the  batallion :  '  French  lessons  to  the  com- 
pany.' Begin  at  once.  Nobody  knows  where  we  shall  be 
tonight."     "  Very  well,  sir." 

"  Second  company,  attention !  Take  out  your  pencils 
and  notebooks.  Meet  our  professor.  Lieutenant  of  Reserve 
Hartmann !  " 

Gay  murmurs  and  laughter  pass  along  the  line,  and 
after  a  few  minutes  the  whole  company  is  gathered  about 
me,  comfortably  stretched  out  on  the  field,  with  paper  and 
pencils.    The  lesson  begins: 

"  Well,   then,    fellows,  we  are   in   Belgium  now,   and 


142  Germany's  Point  of  View 

soon  we  shall  be  in  France.  There  they  use  francs 
and  centimes.  Write  down :  i  franc  =  lOO  centimes 
(s-a-n-t-ee-m)  ;  i  franc  =3: 80  pfennige;  i  sou  (s-00)  =4 
pf ennige ;  i  franc  =  20  sous.  Don't  let  the  Frenchmen 
cheat  you.  Tell  me,  what  fine  things  do  you  wish  to  buy 
in  France  ?  " 

"  Wine,"  most  of  them  shout  in  reply. 

"Well,  then,  write:  du  vin  (d-e-v-e-n-g).  And  now 
remember  this  once  for  all:  Every  word  in  which  there 
is  an  M  or  an  w  is  pronounced  through  tlie  nose,  and  is 
prolonged,  stretched  out  like  a  rubber  band,  as  it  were. 
If  you  don't  do  that,  the  people  won't  understand  you. 
Well,  then:  du  vin — "  and  (just  as  if  I  stood  before  my 
beginners'  class  at  home)  I  try  to  produce  a  nasal  sound 
of  incomparable  beauty. 

"  Now,  fellows,  close  your  nostrils  and  try  to  imitate 
me!" 

At  once  two  hundred  and  fifty  hard  German  fists  are 
closing,  more  or  less  tightly,  over  as  many  organs  of 
smell,  and  "  du  vin  "  rings  the  challenging  sound  all  over 
the  field.  The  whole  company  roars  with  laughter.  What 
a  funny  speech  that  is ! 

"Go  on  writing:  Milk — -du  lait  (d-e-l-a)  ;  lard  —  du 
lard  (d-e-l-ar)  ;  ham  —  du  jambon  (d-e-sh-ang-b-ong)  ; 
cheese  —  du  fromage  (d-e-f-r-o-m-arsh)." 

Many  another  delicacy  is  served  on  paper,  and  all  the 
soldiers  are  writing  as  diligently  as  if  their  hard  hands 
had  always  held  a  pen  at  home. 

Then  we  turn  to  the  numerals  i  to  10  (eng,  do,  troa, 
katt,  senk,  sees,  etc.),  and  to  the  polite  forms  of  address, 
"  msyo,"  "  madam,"  "  madmoasell."  Finally  we  learn, 
Donnez-moi  (donna  moa),  which  they  are  told  to  put 
before  the  thing  they  want,  if  they  are  asking  for  any- 
thing. One  fellow  wants  to  know  the  French  for  "  kiss," 
and  amid  great  delight  "  le  baza "  is  entered  in  every 
notebook  and  every  memory. 

"  This  is  a  fine  and  necessary  word,  boys,  and  after  it 
write  *  I'amour '  (larmoor),  love,  for  these  two  words 
belong  together.  And  don't  ever  forget  to  place  *  donna 
moa '  before  them.  *  Soldiers  to  the  guns ! '  the  order 
sounds.  '  Second  company  to  your  guns ! '  the  order  is 
taken  up  everywhere.  Notebooks  and  pencils  are  stored 
away  in  the  bread  boxes,  and  ten  minutes  later  the  iron 
line  is  again  on  the  march  to  meet  the  enemy." 


German  Soldiers  143 


We  may  imagine  them  singing  the  splendid  march- 
ing song,  Ich  hatt  einen  Kameraden.  After  each  verse 
the  Httle  song  of  birds  and  woods  and  home  is  added. 
Thus: 

I  had  a  friend  and  comrade, 

None  knew  a  better  boy. 
The  drums  are  calHng  loudly. 
See,  how  he  answers  proudly ! 

To  walk  with  him  was  joy. 

The  birds  in  the  woods  are  singing. 
Are  singing  to  warm  your  heart.  ' 

At  home,  ah,  at  home,  your  dear  ones 
We'll  meet,  and  never  will  part. 

Gloria  !    Gloria  !   Victoria  ! 

With  heart  and  hand  for  the  Fatherland ! 

A  bullet  came  to  meet  us  — 

Was  it  meant  for  you  or  me? 
It  struck  him  down,  and,  calling 
My  name,  I  saw  him  falling. 

He  seemed  a  part  of  me. 

The  birds  in  the  woods  are  singing. 
Are  singing  to  warm  your  heart. 

At  home,  ah,  at  home,  your  dear  ones 
We'll  meet,  and  never  will  part. 

Gloria  !   Gloria  !   Victoria  ! 

With  heart  and  hand  for  the  Fatherland ! 

Once  more  he  tried  to  touch  me; 

I  could  not  take  his  hand. 
My  gun  was  loaded  quickly. 
Remain  in  heaven,  pray  thee. 

My  comrade  and  my  friend ! 

The  birds  in  the  woods  are  singing, 
Are  singing  to  warm  your  heart. 

At  home,  ah,  at  home,  your  dear  ones 
We'll  meet,  and  never  will  part. 

Gloria  !    Gloria  !   Victoria  ! 

With  heart  and  hand  for  the  Fatherland ! 


144  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  song  died  away,  the  thunder  of  the  cannon 
grew  louder,  the  well-shod  feet  of  the  soldiers  re- 
sounded on  the  hard  road,  but  many  a  man  heard 
nought  but  the  beating  of  his  own  heart.  Then  the 
professor  struck  up  Korner's  Prayer  During  Battle 
(given  here  in  the  translation  by  C.  T.  Brooks  from 
the  excellent  collection  of  German  songs  in  The  Ger- 
man Classics),  and  company  after  company  joined  in 
the  magnificent  song: 


Father,  I  call  to  thee. 
The  roaring  artillery's  clouds  thicken  round  me; 
The  hiss  and  the  glare  of  the  loud  bolts  confound  me. 

Ruler  of  battles,  I  call  on  thee : 

O  Father,  lead  thou  me ! 

O  Father,  lead  thou  me; 
To  victory,  to  death,  dread  Commander,  O  guide  me; 
The  dark  valley  brightens  when  thou  art  beside  me ; 

Lord,  as  thou  wilt,  so  lead  me. 

God,  I  acknowledge  thee. 

God,  I  acknowledge  thee ; 
When  the  breeze  through  the  dry  leaves  of  autumn  is 

moaning, 
When  the  thunderstorm  of  battle  is  groaning. 

Fount  of  mercy,  in  each  I  acknowledge  thee. 

O  Father,  bless  thou  me ! 

O  Father,  bless  thou  me; 
I  trust  in  thy  mercy,  whatever  may  befall  me; 
'Tis  thy  word  that  hath  sent  me ;  that  word  can  recall  me. 

Living  or  dying,  O  bless  thou  me ! 

Father,  I  honor  thee. 

Father,  I  honor  thee; 
Not  for  earth's  hoards  or  honors  we  here  are  contending; 
All  that  is  holy  our  swords  are  defending; 

Then  falling,  and  conquering,  I  hono^-  thee. 

God,  I  repose  in  thee. 


German  Soldiers  145 


God,  I  repose  in  thee ; 
When  the  thunders  of  death  my  soul  are  greeting, 
When  the  gashed  veins  bleed,  and  the  life  is  fleeting, 

In  thee,  my  God,  I  repose  in  thee. 

Father,  I  call  on  thee. 

The  very  air  seemed  purified.  Whatever  selfish 
train  of  thought  the  individual  soldier  or  officer  had 
been  following  fell  into  insignificance  before  the  grand 
conception  of  God  and  man.  Deep  silence  ensued, 
almost  mechanically  the  troops  moved  on.  Suddenly 
the  colonel  was  seen  to  receive  an  order,  and,  on  a 
message  from  him,  the  professor  struck  up  another 
song.  Everybody  knew  what  that  meant,  for  it  was 
the  German  national  song:  Deutschland,  Deutschland 
Uber  Alles,  It  is  here  given  in  the  translation  by 
Margarete  Munsterberg: 

German  land  above  all  others. 

Dear  above  all  other  lands. 
That  —  a  faithful  host  of  brothers  — 

Evermore  united  stands; 
That,  from  Maas  to  farthest  Memel, 

And  from  Etsch  to  Belt  expands :  — 
German  land,  above  all  others, 

Dear  above  all  other  lands ! 

German  faith  and  German  women, 

German  wine  and  German  song. 
In  the  world  shall  keep  the  beauties 

Which  of  old  to  them  belong. 
Still  to  noble  deeds  inspiring. 

They  shall  always  make  us  strong  — 
German  faith  and  German  women, 

German  wine  and  German  song ! 

Union,  right,  and  freedom  ever 

For  the  German  Fatherland  ! 
So,  with  brotherly  endeavor. 

Let  us  strive  with  heart  and  hand ! 


146  Germany's  Point  of  View 

For  a  bliss  that  wavers  never, 

Union,  right,  and  freedom  stand  — 

In  this  glory  bloom  forever, 

Bloom,  my  German  Fatherland ! 

"  In  less  than  an  hour,"  Professor  Hartmann's  sim- 
ple story  given  above  says,  "  we  received  our  baptism 
of  fire." 

Several  vi^eeks  have  passed  since  that  first  French 
lesson.  Many  a  bullet  has  come  across  and  separated 
*'  friends  and  comrades."  The  rest  have  doubtless 
often  repeated  the  words  ''  donnez-moi  du  vin/'  and 
some  may  have  had  the  opportunity  of  saying,  "  don- 
nez-moi  un  baiser,  mademoiselle f'  All  have  daily  sung 
Deutschland,  Deutschland  liber  alles,  and  put  their 
whole  heart  into  the  refrain: 

At  home,  ah,  at  home,  you  dear  ones, 
We'll  meet,  and  never  will  part. 

Entrenched  from  Strassburg  to  the  sea,  the  Ger- 
man troops  lie  facing  their  opponents,  and,  if  accounts 
are  true,  a  kind  of  truce  stops  all  activity  along  thC' 
entire  line  from  sundown  to  five-thirty  in  the  morn- 
ing. On  Christmas  eve,  as  the  shadows  deepened,  a 
new  air  from  the  German  side  was  wafted  across 
the  frosty  ground.  The  French  and  English  knew 
its  message.  But  the  wild  Indian  troops,  the  Zouaves, 
and  the  Turkos  had  not  heard  it  before,  and  had  never 
felt  the  deep  stirrings  of  the  human  heart,  when 

Stille  Nacht,  heilige  Nacht! 

broke  on  the  silence  of  the  holy  night. 

There  was  a  German  Christmas  party  in  the  Hotel 
Somerset  during  the  holidays  in  December,  1914.    In 


German  Soldiers  147 

the  center  a  huge  spruce  tree,  surrounded  by  a  forest 
of  smaller  trees,  almost  touched  the  ceiling.  At  one 
end  hung  a  picture  of  William  ii_,  painted  as  Germans 
know  the  man  to  be  —  strong,  upright,  just  and  kindly. 

Suddenly  the  lights  were  lowered,  while  hundreds 
of  gay  little  dots  illuminated  the  huge  Christmas  tree. 
The  band  began  the  first  soft  tones  of  Stille  Nacht, 
and  the  whole  large  company  of  Germans  and  their 
American  friends,  including  the  Governor  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, sang  this  most  German  of  all  German 
songs.  The  impression  was  overpowering.  Gently 
lighted  by  a  few  concealed  bulbs,  the  portrait  of 
William  11  smiled  on  the  company.  Forgotten  were 
the  cares,  forgotten  every  bitterness,  for  there  was 
not  a  man  or  woman  whose  heart  did  not  expand  in 
love  and  gratitude  to  God. 

Such  was  the  feeling  here  when  a  few  hundred 
people  joined  in  this  song.  What  was  it  on  the  bat- 
tlefields of  Europe,  when  in  the  West  and  in  the  East 
not  hundreds  but  thousands,  nay  many  hundred  hun- 
dred thousand  German  soldiers  reverently  sang  their 
Christmas  song:  ^ 


Silent  night !   Holy  night ! 

All  is  dark,  save  the  light 

Round  yon  virgin  mother  and  Child ! 

Holy  Infant,  so  tended  and  mild. 

Sleep  in  heavenly  peace ! 

Sleep  in  heavenly  peace ! 

Silent  night !    Holy  night ! 
Shepherds  quake  at  the  sight ! 
Glories  stream  from  heaven  afar. 
Heavenly  hosts  sing  Alleluia, 
Christ,  the  Saviour,  is  born ! 
Christ,  the  Saviour,  is  born ! 


148  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Silent  night !   Holy  night ! 
Child  of  heaven,  oh  !  how  bright 
Is  the  smile  on  thy  lovely  face, 
With  its  message  of  heavenly  grace, 
Jesus,  Lord,  at  Thy  birth ! 
Jesus,  Lord,  at  Thy  birth ! 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  MEANING  OF  TIPPERARY 

DEALERS  in  phonographs  report  that  more  rec- 
ords of  Ifs  a  Long  Way  to  Tipperary  were 
sold  in  Boston  during  the  Christmas  season  of  1914 
than  of  any  other  song.  The  tune  is  Hvely  and  catch- 
ing, and  Tipperary,  like  many  Irish  names,  has  a 
sound  tinged  with  romance.  The  British  have  made 
this  their  marching  song,  and  there  are  people,  no 
doubt,  who  in  their  imagination  see  and  hear  brave 
battalions  marching  to  the  defense  of  Belgium.  Tip- 
perary, Tipperary!  The  British  are  coming!  Tip- 
perary ! 

Do  you  know  what  that  means?  Do  you  know  that 
Tipperary  is  a  county  of  Ireland?  That  in  1841  it 
had  435,553  inhabitants,  and  seventy  years  later,  in 
191 1,  only  151,951  inhabitants?  That  because  of  Eng- 
lish cruelty,  misrule,  avarice,  and  oppression,  this  coun- 
ty has  today  only  about  one-third  as  many  inhabitants 
as  it  had  in  1841  ?  Before  assuming  that  freedom  and 
justice  have  entrusted  their  case  to  the  side  which 
today  sings  Tipperary,  would  it  not  be  wise  to  ask 
whether  freedom  and  justice  have  been  at  home  in 
Tipperary  and  in  Ireland  through  these  many  years 
of  English  rule? 

Forty-two  years  ago,  Wendell  Phillips  addressed 
the  elite  of  Boston,  as  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser  of 
that  day  says,  on  the  Irish  Question  and  more  espe- 

149 


150  Germany's  Point  of  View 

cially  on  the  defense  of  England  which  the  famous 
historian,  James  Anthony  Froude,  had  attempted  to 
make.    Phillips  said : 

In  my  hasty  way  I  have  had  occasion  to  study  somewhat 
at  length  the  history  of  Ireland  in  its  relations  to  the 
British  Government,  and  I  confess,  with  the  exception 
of  the  dates  and  names,  I  should  not  have  recognized  the 
picture  which  the  brilliant  essayist  drew. 

Is  it  not  exactly  the  same  today?  The  more  one 
knows  of  the  real  Germany,  the  less  one  recognizes 
the  picture  which  England  draws  in  the  news  that  is 
flashed  over  her  cables  to  the  remotest  parts  of  the 
world.  One  would  think  that  this  would  detract  from 
its  value.  On  the  contrary,  to  certain  minds  and  news- 
papers it  is  more  valuable  because  of  its  distortion. 
Even  so  noble  a  soul  as  Dr.  Agnes  Repplier  has  tem- 
porarily lost  her  bearing,  and  this  "  prominent "  essay- 
ist (to  quote  Who's  Who  in  America)  wrote  recently: 
"The  Germany  described  by  Dr.  Dernburg  is  one 
which  few  Americans  will  recognize."  Under  ordi- 
nary conditions  she  would  have  asked:  "Is  it  one 
which  those  who  have  been  born  there  or  lived  there 
will  recognize?"  and  being  unanimously  assured  that 
it  is,  she  would  have  been  satisfied  and  pleased  to  have 
learned  something.  Instead,  she  is  in  search  of  a 
Germany  which  will  square  with  the  fantastic  notions 
with  which  the  British  Press  Bureau  has  filled  her 
mind. 

In  1872  Mr.  Froude  was,  as  it  were,  the  British 
Press  Bureau,  desirous  of  spreading  erroneous  notions 
concerning  the  English-Irish  relations  in  this  country. 
But  then  Wendell  Phillips  held  aloft  the  torch  of  truth 
in  Boston.    Who  will  be  the  Wendell  Phillips  today? 


The  Meaning  of  Tipper ary  151 

Then  an  Ireland  was  presented  to  America,  not  as  it 
was,  but  as  England  wished  it  were,  that  she  might 
excuse  her  actions.  Today  it  is  exactly  the  same.  If 
Germany  were  as  the  English  reports  paint  her,  then 
and  only  then  would  there  be  an  excuse  for  England 
joining  in  war  with  Russia  and  Russia's  faithful  money 
-lender  and  ally,  France.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  Ger- 
many is  as  those  who  have  known  her  through  years 
unanimously  believe  her  to  'be,  then  England  stands 
accused.  Herein  lies  the  terrible  dilemma  of  the  people 
whose  sympathies  are  with  the  Allies,  because  they 
know  them  best  or  are  sprung  from  their  blood.  Be- 
fore the  Massachusetts  Teachers'  Club  recently  Fred- 
eric P.  Fish  drew  an  absolutely  impartial  picture  of 
present  European  conditions,  with  which  he  is  prob- 
ably as  familiar  as  anybody  in  Boston.  After  the 
meeting  one  of  the  members  remarked,  "  I  had  no  idea 
that  Fish  was  pro-German."  The  more  the  truth 
gains  ground,  the  more  the  terrible  injustice  done 
Germany  and  its  men  and  women  appears.  For  a 
true  report  to  overtake  a  false  one  is  not  easy,  and 
there  are  few  men  who  can  help  a  just  cause  as 
Wendell  Phillips  did  in  December,  1872.  Referring  to 
Mr.  Froude's  lecture,  he  said: 

No  doubt  it  was  fair  enough  to  England.  With  rare 
justice  he  painted  her  as  black  as  she  deserved.  .  .  . 
When  you  turn  to  Ireland,  every  statement,  I  think,  which 
the  Englishman  made  is  false;  false  in  this  sense,  that  it 
clutched  at  every  idle  tale  which  reflected  upon  Ireland, 
while  it  subjected  to  just  and  merciless  scrutiny  every 
story  that  told  against  England.  He  painted  the  poverty, 
the  anarchy,  the  demoralization,  the  degradation  of  Ireland 
for  the  past  three  centuries,  as  if  it  stood  out  exceptional 
in  Europe,  as  if  every  other  kingdom  was  bright,  and  this 
was  the  only  dark  and  disgusting  spot  on  the  Continent; 


152  Germany's  Point  of  View 

whereas  he  knew,  and  would  not,  if  questioned,  have 
denied,  that  the  same  poverty,  the  same  reckless  immoral- 
ity, the  same  incredible  ignorance  which  he  attributed  to 
the  population  of  Ireland  was  true  of  France  at  that  day, 
true  of  England  at  the  same  period,  truer  still  of  Scotland 
at  every  date  that  he  named.  And  then,  when  he  came 
to  the  public  men  of  Ireland,  he  painted  them  monsters  of 
corruption,  steeped  in  the  utmost  subserviency,  in  the  most 
entire  readiness  to  traffic  for  votes  and  principles,  when 
he  knew  that,  all  that  being  granted,  these  men  were  only 
toiling  and  panting  in  their  narrow  capacity  to  lift  them- 
selves up  to  the  level  of  the  corruption  of  their  English 
brothers.  He  painted  every  leading  Irishman  but  Grattan 
either  as  a  noisy  demagogue  or  a  childish  sentimentalist; 
and  even  Grattan,  when  he  had  said  that  he  was  honest; 
he  finally  ended  him  by  painting  him  a  simpleton.  .  .  . 
Eight  years  ago  I  was  hissed  in  Cooper  Institute  for 
having  said  that  England  was  a  second-rate  Power  on  the 
chess-board  of  Europe;  but  today  her  journalists  have 
ceased  to  deny  the  fact,  and  are  engaged  in  an  explana- 
tion of  why  she  is  so.  And  the  two  great  influences  which 
have  made  her  fall  from  a  first-class  Power  are  the  neglect 
and  oppression  of  her  own  masses,  and  seven  centuries  of 
unadulterated  and  infamous  oppression  of  Ireland. 

Tipperary !  It  is  a  long  way  to  Tipperary !  But  Eng- 
land, it  is  not  a  long  v^ay  from  Tipperary.  The  next 
time  the  reader  hears  your  catching  tune,  he  will  ask 
**  What  did  England  do  with  the  300,000  people  that  are 
less  in  Tipperary  today  than  were  there  two  generations 
ago  ?  "  And  over  the  embarrassed  silence  he  will  hear 
the  death  groans  of  saintly  Father  Sheehy,  the  parish 
priest  of  Tipperary,  whom  the  English  murdered  in 
Clonmel  Jail  in  1782  after  he  had  been  tried  and 
acquitted  in  Dublin.  "They  placed  his  severed  head 
upon  a  pike  above  the  gates  of  gloomy  Clonmel  Jail, 
where  it  remained  for  ten  years  exposed  to  the  jeers 
of  a  brutal  British  soldiery."  At  last  the  aged  sister 
of  Father  Sheehy  is  said  to  have  stolen  the  head  and 


The  Meaning  of  Tipperary  153 

buried  it  with  his  dismembered  body  in  St.  Stephen's 
Cemetery  in  sacred  Tipperary  soil.  Two  other  ecclesi- 
astics, Albert  O'Brien,  Archbishop  of  Cashel  and 
Emly,  and  Bishop  Dwyer,  were  hanged  by  the  English 
in  the  market  place  of  Tipperary. 

The  more  one  listens  the  louder  and  clearer  the 
groans  from  murdered  and  massacred  priests,  women 
and  children,  old  men  and  soldiers,  strike  one's  ear, 
not  only  from  Tipperary,  but  from  everywhere  in 
Ireland  and  through  the  whole  of  the  past  seven 
centuries. 

The  early  history  of  Ireland  is  not  well  known,  and 
most  of  the  chronicles  collected  in  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries,  while  based  on  facts,  have  come 
down  to  us  in  the  nature  of  fables.  So  much,  however, 
is  sure,  that  the  Romans  never  conquered  Ireland  as 
they  had  conquered  England,  for  there  are  no  Roman 
names  in  Ireland  to  tell  of  such  conquests.  St.  Patrick 
about  450  and  St.  Columba,  a  century  later,  introduced 
and  strengthened  the  Christian  religion,  and  while  the 
rest  of  Europe  was  from  about  500  to  900  A.  D.  a 
continuous  battlefield  on  which  the  younger  races  were 
taking  up  their  new  abodes,  Ireland  was  during  these 
centuries  the  home  of  scholars  and  saints,  and  the 
source  of  the  best  available  cultural  light.  Then  came 
the  conquest  by  the  Danes,  who  were  driven  out  after 
200  years  by  Brian  Boru,  who  had  succeeded  in  uniting 
the  various  factions  into  one  strong  army. 

At  his  death,  however,  the  fatal  Irish  individualism 
reasserted  itself  and  after  several  generations  of  divi- 
sion and  anarchy  Henry  11  of  England  had  no  difficulty 
in  establishing  his  rule  in  Ireland.  "The  next  six 
hundred  and  fifty  years"  we  read  in  volume  ix  of 


154  Germany^ s  Point  of  View 

Irish  Literature,  edited  by  Justin  McCarthy,  are  a 
"  black  catalogue  of  wars  of  conquest  and  obstinate 
resistance,  confiscation,  plunder,  tyranny,  and  injus- 
tices, nay,  of  extermination  itself/'  Under  Edward  iii 
the  ancient  Irish  laws  were  abolished  and  intermar- 
riages between  the  English  and  the  Irish  were  for- 
bidden and  punished,  not  as  misdemeanors,  but  as 
crimes.  And  worst  of  all,  the  use  of  the  Irish  lan- 
guage was  forbidden.  This  was  centuries  ago,  but 
the  language  did  not  disappear.  In  185 1  there  were 
1,204,684  people  who  spoke  it,  and  in  1891  680,174, 
while  of  these  38,121  people  knew  no  other  langauge. 
This  means  that  even  today  there  are  nine  people  in 
every  thousand  who  cannot  speak  English. 

In  1495,  just  as  the  discovery  of  America  opened 
the  prospect  of  freedom  and  breadth  of  vision  to  the 
world,  the  notorious  Poynings'  act  fastened  the  tyranny 
of  England  on  Ireland,  for  it  forbade  the  Irish  Parlia- 
ment to  convene  except  at  the  call  of  the  English  king 
or  to  deliberate  on  measures  other  than  those  of  his 
choosing.  This  fettered  the  political  life  of  the  coun- 
try and  made  any  opposition  against  the  persecution 
and  robbery  of  the  king's  barons  impossible.  The 
cruelties  then  perpetrated  against  the  whole  Irish  race 
defy  description  and  even  if  much  is  discarded  as 
fable,  the  residuum  is  enough  to  stain  forever  the 
good  name  of  the  conquerors. 

Things,  however,  went  from  bad  to  worse,  for  after 
the  reformation,  under  Henry  viii,  religious  fanaticism 
was  added  to  arrogance  and  race  hatred.  Queen 
Elizabeth  persecuted  the  Catholic  Irish  with  great  cun- 
ning, and  when  the  rebellion  of  Hugh  O'Neill  had 
collapsed,  parcelled  out  a  whole  county  to   favored 


The  Meaning  of  Tipperary  155 

English  colonists.  Cromwell,  however,  was  the  most 
ruthless  foe  Ireland  has  ever  had.  He  reduced  the 
country  in  nine  months  and  held  it  in  an  iron  grip. 
Some  amelioration  took  place  under  Charles  11  and 
James  11^  but  not  enough  to  prevent  a  civil  war,  which 
culminated  in  the  defense  of  Limerick,  the  battle  of 
the  Boyne,  and  the  Treaty  of  Limerick  in  169 1. 

Does  Sir  Edward  Grey  remember  this  treaty  of 
Limerick?  Does  he  know  that  the  Irish  laid  down 
their  arms  trusting  the  English  word?  And  has  he 
forgotten  that  the  English  Parliament  broke  this 
treaty,  when  the  Irish  troops  were  dispersed,  broke 
it  against  the  will  of  the  king  who  wished  to  keep 
his  word,  and  without  any  excuse?  In  the  work  by 
Justin  McCarthy  quoted  above  we  read: 

The  infamous  ignoring  of  this  treaty  by  the  conqueror 
was  a  violation  of  plighted  honor  which  has  done  more 
than  any  one  event  to  keep  alive  Irish  hatred  and  distrust 
of  England. 

Nor  did  England  care  what  the  Irish  thought.  She 
imposed  on  them  worse  penal  laws  (1695-97)  than 
she  had  given  them  before,  and  went  serenely  on 
coercing  and  robbing  them  and  stamping  out  the  fre- 
quent rebellions  with  blood  and  iron. 

The  first  turn  for  the  better  was  brought  about 
by  America.  When  she  had  won  her  independence, 
England  was  prepared  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  greater 
moderation.  First  she  repealed  the  Poynings'  Act, 
and  driven  to  action  by  men  like  Burke,  Grattan  and 
Flood  she  started  on  the  legislative  career  which  has 
just  resulted  in  the  home  rule  bill.  But  even  in  this 
bill  the  English  Government  could  not  hew  straight 
to  the  line  of  honesty.     To  satisfy  Redmond  and  his 


156  Germany's  Point  of  View 

followers  the  bill  has  been  passed  and  signed,  and  to 
satisfy  Carson  and  his  followers  it  has  been  suspended 
for  a  year  and  the  promise  has  been  given  that  it  will 
never  be  put  into  execution  in  its  present  form.  No 
national  foe  of  England,  nor  Bernard  Shaw  himself, 
has  uttered  as  severe  strictures  of  the  Asquith  Gov- 
ernment as  the  Irish  since  the  signing  of  the  Home 
Rule  bill.  The  present  Government,  they  have  said, 
is  so  crooked  that  they  cannot  even  perform  the  sim- 
plest routine  act  in  a  straightforward  manner. 

The  hundred  years  and  more  intervening  between 
the  repeal  of  the  Poynings'  Act  and  the  passage  of 
the  home  rule  bill  are  among  the  worst  that  beautiful 
island  has  suffered.  In  previous  centuries,  as  Wendell 
Phillips  pointed  out,  sordid  conditions  could  be  found 
in  every  country.  The  nineteenth  century,  however, 
was  one  of  unparalleled  growth  in  every  other  civilized 
State.  The  advance  was  rapid  everywhere  but  —  in 
Ireland.  The  populations  and  their  prosperity  grew 
everywhere  but  —  in  Ireland.  Here,  however,  many 
died  by  the  sword,  more  of  neglect,  and  countless 
numbers  of  starvation.  The  Patriotic  Societies  Rebel- 
lion was  put  down  in  1800,  and  in  the  next  year  Ire- 
land was  ''tricked  out  of  its  Parliament"  which  it 
had  preserved  at  least  in  name,  and  was  "  cheated  into 
union  with  Great  Britain.'' 

The  first  to  wage  war  under  the  altered  conditions 
was  Robert  Emmet,  whose  parents  were  at  home  in 
Tipperary.  The  next  time  you  hear  Tipperary  sung, 
why  not  include  gallant  Robert  Emmet  in  the  gallery 
of  English  victims  whose  ghosts  are  liberated  by  the 
British  marching  song,  for  he  was  hanged  in  Dublin 
in  1803! 


The  Meaning  of  Tipperary  157 

The  next  uprising  of  large  proportions  took  place 
in  the  early  forties.  A  national  newspaper,  the  Nation, 
had  been  founded  by  two  Catholics  and  one  Protestant 
in  1842,  and,  being  ably  conducted,  had  spread  the 
Irish  hopes  of  freedom.  The  movement  failed,  and 
most  of  the  leaders  were  cast  into  prison  and  none  too 
well  treated,  among  them  Daniel  O'Connell,  Thomas 
Steele,  and  Richard  Barrett.  One  of  the  most  bril- 
liant and  violent  opponents  of  the  English  at  that 
time  was  a  Unitarian  minister,  John  Mitchel.  He  was 
arrested,  tried,  and  condemned  as  a  felon  to  Van 
Diemen's  Land!  Before  the  sentence  could  be  exe- 
cuted Tipperary  elected  him  to  a  seat  in  Parliament. 
One  more  man  to  remember  when  Tipperary  strikes 
your  ear  —  a  Unitarian  minister,  John  Mitchel,  con- 
demned by  the  English  as  a  felon  to  Van  Diemen's 
Land  considerably  less  than  one  hundred  years  ago, 
because  he  dared  to  raise  his  voice  against  the  oppres- 
sion of  his  people!  Tipperary!  The  English  are 
coming ! 

And  then  the  terrible  calamity  of  blight  on  their 
potato  fields  visited  the  Irish  in  two  successive  years, 
1845  ^^d  1846.  It  was  followed  by  the  great  famine. 
Why?  Was  there  no  food  in  the  country?  Had  the 
farmers  no  stock  in  their  barns,  no  fowl,  or  goats,  or 
sheep?  Had  they  no  grain?  Oh,  yes;  they  had  all 
this.  But  they  dared  not  touch  it.  It  had  to  be 
shipped  to  England  to  pay  the  rent  to  the  landlords, 
most  of  whom  lived  in  England.  Think  of  it;  while 
people  were  dying  by  the  thousands,  while  kind-hearted 
America  and  other  countries  sent  supplies,  and  Eng- 
land magnanimously  appropriated  money  for  the  build- 
ing of  unnecessary  roads  that  the  half-starved  Irish 


158  Germany* s  Point  of  View 

might  earn  a  penny,  these  poor,  downtrodden  people 
had  to  export  to  England  the  food  they  had,  that 
they  might  pay  their  absentee  landlords!  If  they  did 
not  pay  they  were  evicted.  Conditions  grew  bad  be- 
yond description.  A  traveler  of  the  time  wrote  after 
seeing  the  people:  *^I  wonder  not  that  they  die,  but 
that  some  of  them  live." 

When  the  famine  was  over,  fever  set  in,  and  then 
the  large  emigration  began.  Within  a  few  years  Ire- 
land had  lost  2,000,000  of  her  small  population.  And 
right  across  the  narrow  strip  of  water  England  was 
prospering,  and  some  of  her  good  people  were  writing 
books  or  talking  publicly,  just  as  they  are  today,  that 
personal  kindness  and  morality  should  distinguish  na- 
tions as  well  as  individuals.  The  trouble  with  these 
good  people  is  that  they  are  willing,  although  they 
are  in  the  majority,  to  retain  at  the  head  of  their 
affairs  men  whose  principles  are  not  theirs.  They  and 
many  good  Americans  raise  their  voices  to  heaven 
against  Germany  today  because  Germany,  they  say, 
is  not  feeding  Belgium.  Feed  Belgium!  Germany 
would  wish  nothing  better  than  that,  if  England  would 
let  her  buy  the  necessary  food.  But  contrary  to  all 
international  law,  contrary  to  the  principles  of  justice 
enunciated  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  himself  during  the 
Russo-Japanese  War  (see  Atlantic  Monthly,  Decem- 
ber, 1914),  England  and  her  Allies  will  not  permit 
one  ounce  of  foodstuff  to  reach  the  German  ports  or 
any  neutral  ports  where  Germany  could  buy  it.  To 
deprive  an  army  of  food  has  always  been  considered 
fair,  but  to  try  to  starve  out  a  whole  people  of  non- 
combatants,  to  starve,  incidentally,  also  the  Belgians 
who  have  risked  their  all  for  England,  and  to  starve 


The  Meaning  of  Tipperary  159 

one-fifth  of  the  French  population  which  is  living  in 
territory  now  held  by  the  Germans,  this  is  a  procedure 
unheard  of  in  the  annals  of  history.  Nor  is  there 
another  people  in  the  world  that  could  be  guilty  of 
it  except  the  English  who,  seventy  years  ago,  with 
great  equanimity  saw  a  million  Irish  starve  to  death 
that  they  themselves  might  collect  their  regular  rent! 

One  would  have  thought  that  the  Irish  famine 
would  have  induced  the  English  to  attempt  a  thor- 
ough house-cleaning.  But  even  this  lesson  was  not 
strong  enough.  "  Young  Ireland  "  and  the  "  Fenian 
Brotherhood ''  rose  and  fell  before  some  reforms  were 
attempted. 

In  1869  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church 
was  decreed,  and  in  1870  the  first  Irish  Law  Act 
was  passed.  Then,  however,  new  cruelties  were  per- 
petrated and  the  Irish  National  Land  League  was  sup- 
pressed and  its  leaders  imprisoned.  In  C.  S.  Parnell, 
finally,  the  Irish  cause  found  a  worthy  leader.  The 
result  was  the  first  Home  Rule  bill,  which  was  de- 
feated in  1886,  and  the  second  Home  Rule  bill  in  1893, 
which  was  likewise  defeated.  While  the  Local  Gov- 
ernment Act  of  1898  marked  the  first  great  step  in 
advance,  what  the  fate  of  the  present  Home  Rule 
bill  will  be  nobody  knows.  The  Irish  have  not  for- 
gotten the  Treaty  of  Limerick,  and  are  not  yet  con- 
vinced that  John  G.  Rowe  is  wrong  who  says  in  his 
Romance  of  Irish  History  the  English  slogan  as  re- 
gards the  Irish  was  "  No  faith  was  to  be  kept  with 
the  Irish." 

This  is  a  short  survey  of  Irish  history  under  Eng- 
lish rule.  It  has  been  deemed  unnecessary  to  dwell  on 
individual  scenes  of  horror.    But  if  the  reader  is  in- 


l6o  Germany's  Point  of  View 

terested  in  this  side  of  the  case  there  are  many  books 
written  on  the  subject.  The  more  he  reads,  the  more 
clearly  he  will  see  where  the  English  writers  of  today 
get  their  inspiration  for  their  accounts  of  the  atrocities 
they  ascribe  to  the  Germans.  To  such  inquisitive 
souls  the  Athence  Oxonienses,  by  Anthony  Wood,  is 
especially  recommended,  for  it  contains  the  accounts 
of  an  eye-witness  of  the  storming  of  Drogheda. 

The  friends  of  Drogheda  and  the  monsters  of  Tip- 
perary  are  not  the  English  any  one  of  us  know,  for 
these  are  kind-hearted  and  just.  The  writer  recently 
met  one  of  a  band  of  unselfish  Englishmen  who  have 
made  it  their  business  to  bring  a  bit  of  love  and  human 
kindness  to  the  Germans,  Austrians,  and  Hungarians 
in  the  English  detention  camps.  They  are  doing  much 
good,  but  as  long  as  they  acquiesce  in  the  conduct 
of  war  as  waged  by  their  Government  in  Ireland,  South 
Africa,  Egypt,  and  India,  they  must  bear  the  scorn 
which  an  unprejudiced  posterity  will  heap  upon  them. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  that  was  the  only  kind 
of  warfare  fitted  to  the  savage  manner  of  their  Indian 
opponents.  After  the  rebellion  of  Cawnpore  in  India, 
General  James  George  Neill  ordered  that  all  "those 
engaged  in  the  rebellion  should  lick  up  the  dried  blood 
of  the  murdered  before  being  hanged,  thereby  to  add 
the  certainty  of  hell  after  death  to  their  present  tor- 
ments." The  official  order  (July  26,  1857)  reads: 
"  The  task  will  be  made  as  revolting  to  his  (the  pris- 
oner's) feelings  as  possible,  and  the  provost-marshal 
will  use  the  lash  in  forcing  anyone  objecting  to  com- 
plete the  task.''  Such  treatment  is  demanded  by  the 
savage  nature  of  the  Indian  natives,  according  to  the 
English  themselves,  and  yet  it  is  these  very  Indians 


The  Meaning  of  Tipperary  i6i 

that  the  English  have  now  imported  to  fight  the  white 
man's  battle ! 

Mr.  Froude,  the  English  Press  Bureau  of  a  genera- 
tion ago,  explained  the  English  attitude  in  an  un- 
guarded moment  as  follows : 

The  English,  ever  ready,  when  confronted  with  similar 
problems  [i.  e.,  military  difficulty]  in  India  or  elsewhere 
[meaning  Ireland],  to  use  same  [excessive  cruelties]  on 
lighter  occasions,  yet  make  a  compromise  with  their  con- 
sciences, and  when  the  severity  is  over,  and  the  fruits  of 
it  in  peace  and  order  are  gathered  and  enjoyed,  agree 
usually  or  always  to  exclaim  against  the  needless  cruelty. 

Father  Sheehy,  Archbishop  O'Brien,  Bishop  Dwyer, 
Robert  Emmet,  John  Mitchell  Tipperary!  Ifs  a 
long  way  to  Tipperary! 


CHAPTER  XIII 

GERMANY  BROKE  NO  TREATY 

CAROLINE  A.  MASON,  the  author  (Mrs.  John 
H.  Mason),  has  addressed  a  letter  to  the  writer 
and  given  him  permission  to  make  such  use  of  it  as  he 
pleases.  It  contains  a  succinct  statement  of  the  views 
held  by  very  many  people  who  feel  obliged  to  condemn 
Germany,  although  they  do  it  regretfully.  To  them 
the  case  is  so  clear  that  they  cannot  understand  how 
anybody,  German-born  or  not,  can  refrain  from  lifting 
his  voice  in  stern  rebuke. 

The  writer  understands  Mrs.  Mason's  position,  for 
he,  too,  was  deeply  troubled  at  the  first  news  of  Ger- 
many's invasion  of  Belgium ;  and,  while  he  never  lost 
his  faith  in  the  country  of  his  birth,  he  believed  that 
the  German  Government  had  made  a  grievous  mistake. 
Later  when  more  detailed  reports  reached  him  he 
changed  his  views,  with  a  joy  which  only  those  will 
understand  who  have  known  a  loved  one  accused  of 
crime  and  great  moral  obliquity,  and  have  found  him, 
after  anxious  weeks  of  waiting,  probably  innocent; 
nay,  more  than  innocent,  because  the  original  ac- 
cusation seemed  to  have  been  brought  against  him 
wantonly. 

A  change  of  heart  is  not  arguable,  nor  are  argu- 
ments in  place  in  reply  to  such  a  frank  and  generous 
letter  as  that  of  Mrs.  Mason.  The  writer,  therefore, 
contents  himself  with  printing  Mrs.   Mason's  letter 

162 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  163 

and  giving  some  of  the  reasons  why  he,  and  many 
with  him,  nevertheless,  hold  Germany  to  be  innocent, 
and  why  they  believe  in  the  justice  of  her  cause. 

1913  Park  Road,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Frofessor  Edmund  von  Mach  : 

Dear  Sir  —  From  time  to  time  I  have  read  your  articles 
in  defence  of  the  practices  and  purposes  of  Germany  in 
the  present  lamentable  war.  As  a  consequence,  I  am  now 
yielding  to  the  inclination  to  express  to  you  what  I  am 
aware  is  the  sentiment  of  a  large  number  of  readers. 

No  one  can  fail  to  appreciate  the  restraint,  the  fine 
temper,  and  spirit  with  which  you  write.  While  certain 
advocates  of  the  same  cause  do  Germany  incalculable 
injury  by  their  lack  of  these  characteristics,  you  surprise 
the  public  by  your  demonstration  that  even  now  a  German 
can  keep  his  temper.  Because  you,  better  than  others,  can 
grasp  our  point  of  view,  I  venture  to  think  it  may  not  be 
wholly  useless  to  write  frankly  concerning  these  issues  as 
Americans  intimately  and  veritably  regard  them. 

Let  me  say,  then,  that,  with  all  your  loyalty  of  intention 
and  acumen  in  argument,  these  various  attempts  of  yours 
to  justify  Germany  in  re  Belgium  must  remain  fruitless. 
This  is  for  a  basic  reason  and  one  which  nothing  can 
change. 

You  remember  Emerson's  "What  you  are  thunders  so 
loud  that  I  cannot  hear  what  you  say  "  ?  What  Germany 
has  done  in  obvious  and  avowed  violation  of  faith,  honor, 
and,  above  all,  of  humanity,  is  so  monstrous  that  an  ocean 
of  words  can  never  wash  it  from  the  memory  of  mankind. 
With  every  new  revelation  of  her  bitter  oppression  of  the 
Belgian  people,  the  deeper  grows  her  moral  isolation  in 
Christendom,  whose  fundamental  laws,  whether  technical 
or  not,  she  has  cynically  ignored. 

Those  of  us  who  have  loved  and  trusted  the  German 
people  in  better  times  are  listening,  but  in  vain,  for  one 
voice  from  within  to  redeem  her  infamy  of  unanimous 
consent  to  her  deeds.  What  would  we  not  give  if  a  voice 
like  yours  should  be  lifted  in  stern  rebuke  instead  of  in 
defence  of  your  nation's  course?  Then  faith  that  Ger- 
many's conscience  was  not  dead  would  again  flicker  into 
life. 

May  I  in  all  sincerity  speak  to  you  of  my  own  expe- 


164  Germany's  Point  of  View 

rience?  This  not  because  of  any  importance  on  my  own 
part,  but  because  I  know  it  to  be  typical.  I  shall  set  down 
nothing  on  which  you  may  not  depend  as  simple  truth. 

First  of  all,  I  simply  cannot  penetrate  to  any  adequate 
reason  for  the  mysterious  transformation  of  Germany's 
whole  Wesen.  I  know  that  thirty  years  ago  she  was  not 
what  she  is  today. 

In  my  girlhood  I  spent  a  year  in  Germany  in  study  and 
travel.  I  imbibed  a  deep  affection  for  the  land,  the  people, 
the  literature,  traditions,  customs,  folklore,  music.  In 
Germany  I  received  my  earliest  inspiration  in  authorship, 
and  my  literary  work  began  with  translation  of  Hermann 
Grimm's  essays.  Through  the  first  twenty  years  of  my 
married  life  my  enthusiasm  for  all  things  German  knew 
no  abatement.  During  that  time  I  did  not  travel  in  Europe, 
but  ten  years  ago  there  began  a  series  of  visits  to  England, 
and  more  particularly  to  the  Continent,  on  the  part  of  my 
husband,  myself,  and  our  daughters.  With  these  journeys 
began  the  rude  shock  of  disenchantment  as  regards  the 
people  of  Germany.  They  were  not  the  people  I  had 
known. 

Traveling  widely,  often  off  the  beaten  paths,  often  with- 
out a  man  in  our  party,  we  have  been  treated  with  unfail- 
ing courtesy  and  consideration  by  those  we  have  met, 
officials  and  otherwise,  except  by  Germans.  Astonished 
and  chagrined,  I  have  been  forced  to  admit  that  the  typical 
Teutonic  men  and  women  thus  encountered  are  underbred, 
overbearing,  noisy,  eager  to  grasp  every  selfish  advantage, 
ready  to  ride  roughshod  over  the  rights  of  others.  A 
recently  published  book  by  Mr.  Whitridge  asserts  that  the 
Germans  have  become  "easily  the  most  objectionable 
people  to  be  seen  in  the  inns  and  on  the  highways  of  the 
Continent." 

Twenty  years  ago  I  should  have  indignantly  resented 
this  statement;  today  I  must  admit  that  it  is  perfectly 
true  in  my  own  experience. 

If  you  have  patience  to  read  on,  you  will,  I  think,  con- 
fess that  I  am  justified  in  this  conviction.  I  will  mention 
three  incidents  of  travel. 

In  Sicily,  last  winter,  we  traveled  from  Syracuse  to 
Girgenti  —  a  long,  hard  day's  journey.  In  our  party  were 
three  ladies,  one  an  invalid,  and  a  gentleman.  In  the  next 
compartment  were  two  Germans  with  their  wives,  who  ate, 
drank,  laughed,  and  talked  loudly  all  day.    A  week  before 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  165 

we  had  engaged  rooms  at  the  Hotel  des  Temples,  two 
miles  or  more  from  the  station  of  Girgenti.  Arriving  three 
hours  late  and  well  on  towards  midnight,  in  a  cold,  tor- 
rential rain,  we  were  met  by  the  hotel  porter,  who  told  us 
we  were  expected  and  a  closed  carriage  was  waiting  for  us. 
While  we  collected  our  luggage,  the  German  party,  who 
had  traveled  iti  the  next  compartment  through  the  day, 
commandeered  our  carriage,  the  only  one  procurable,  by 
what  means,  I  do  not  know,  and  drove  cheerfully  away, 
not  to  the  Hotel  des  Temples. 

The  second  incident  occurred  to  my  husband  on  a  soli- 
tary walking  tour  over  the  Gemmi  Pass.  After  a  stiff 
morning's  walk  he  entered  the  dining-room  of  a  small 
mountain  inn,  where  sat,  at  different  tables,  an  English 
gentleman  and  a  German  officer.  The  latter  had  thrown 
his  traveling  case  down  in  the  middle  of  a  small  settle. 
In  order  to  find  a  seat,  my  husband  moved  this  case  a 
few  inches,  whereupon  the  German  officer  sprang  to  his 
feet,  with  crimson  face  and  glaring  eyes  and  menace  of 
physical  force,  and  poured  out  upon  him  a  storm  of  loud 
abuse,  beginning  with,  "  How  dare  you,"  etc.  My  hus- 
band was  too  astounded  to  defend  himself;  but  the  Eng- 
lishman turned  upon  the  German  and  sternly  bade  him 
stop,  the  only  offender  being  the  man  who  had  placed  his 
luggage  where  he  had  no  right  so  to  do. 

In  the  third  instance  which  I  care  to  mention,  my 
daughter  was,  several  years  ago,  obliged  to  travel  alone 
by  night  from  Paris  to  Dresden.  Not  wishing  to  take  a 
sleeper,  she  chose  a  seat  in  a  compartment  reserved  for 
ladies,  which  was  occupied  through  the  night  by  herself 
and  a  middle-aged  Erenchwoman.  My  daughter  was  a 
girl  of  serious  and  dignified  demeanor,  but  she  was  young 
and  pretty. 

As  the  evening  wore  on,  sounds  of  students'  songs  and 
loud  revelry  reached  the  ladies'  compartment,  and  pres- 
ently there  appeared  in  the  corridor  a  group  of  German 
students,  four  or  five.  Discovering  an  unprotected  girl, 
these  young  men  stationed  them,selves  at  the  door  of  the 
compartment,  being  careful  not  to  be  found  within  its  limits 
and  to  disappear  quietly  on  every  approach  of  the  guard, 
which  approaches  were  infrequent.  They  carried  on  there 
(addressed  to  my  daughter)  a  campaign  of  personal 
innuendo  and  ribald  insult,  combined  with  vulgar  panto- 
mime  which   no  one   could   witness   without  horror  and 


1 66  Germany's  Point  of  View 

disgust.  The  Frenchwoman,  terrified,  went  down  on  her 
knees  and  spent  the  night  in  prayer,  which  may  have  been 
consoling  to  herself,  but  which  left  my  daughter  com- 
pletely alone  to  bear  these  brutal  indignities,  which  were 
kept  up  until  morning  with  efficiency.  My  daughter  ought, 
no  doubt,  to  have  called  the  guard  and  insisted  upon  pro- 
tection, but  she  dared  not  do  this,  not  knowing  what  form 
retaliation  might  take.  It  is  perhaps  no  wonder  that  her 
hair  whitened  prematurely. 

Although  we  have  traveled  widely,  no  occurrences  in 
the  least  parallel  to  these  have  been  experienced  by  us, 
where  the  offenders  were  other  than  German.  What  is 
true  of  us  is  the  common  experience  of  travelers. 

Now,  my  contention  is  that  the  spirit  shown  in  the 
above-mentioned  instances  of  ill-usage  was  not  the  spirit 
of  the  Germany  which  my  girlhood  knew  and  loved. 

If,  as  the  newspapers  are  fond  of  saying,  the  maxim, 
"  Might  makes  right,"  has,  as  appears,  become  the  watch- 
word of  new  Germany,  can  you  give  me  any  sufficient 
reason  ?  You  are  at  liberty  to  make  such  use  of  this  letter 
as  you  please.  I  wish  you  would  send  it  to  some  of  your 
friends  in  Germany  for  answer,  if  you  do  not  care  to 
answer  it  yourself.  It  is  written  in  absolute  sincerity  and 
good  faith. 

Dec.  so,  1914.  Caroline  A.  Mason. 

As  regards  Mrs.  Mason's  unpleasant  experiences 
with  German  tourists  it  must  be  confessed  that  the 
latter  have  been  a  nuisance  for  some  time.  When  a 
country  grows  rich  suddenly  some  people  are  sure 
to  call  attention  to  themselves  on  account  of  their 
bad  manners.  German  writers  have  been  as  outspoken 
in  their  condemnation  of  such  a  behavior  as  any.  Said 
Dr.  Paul  Rohrbach  in  German  World  Policies: 

From  whatever  point  of  view  one  looks  at  the  Germans 
abroad  —  granting,  of  course,  some  splendid  exceptions  — 
one  is  met  by  defects  either  of  inner  worth  or  of  ability 
to  make  an  active  propaganda  for  the  German  idea.  Need 
we  refer  to  the  embarrassing  habits  of  the  German  tour- 
ists who  go  through  the  world  in  droves,  with  a  minimum 
of  toilet  and  a  maximum  of  noisy  talk  ? 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  167 

But  when  one  has  acknowledged  this  unpleasant 
habit  of  many  German  tourists,  one  should  add  that 
the  experience  of  Mrs.  Mason's  daughter  is  an  excep- 
tion. The  writer  knows  of  many  ladies,  young  and 
old,  who  feel  absolutely  safe  in  traveling  about  Ger- 
many unattended,  his  own  youngest  sister  having  often 
gone  alone  from  the  shore  of  the  Baltic  to  Meran. 

As  to  the  incident  with  the  German  officer,  related 
by  Mr.  Mason,  it  is  incomprehensible.  In  the  first 
place  German  officers  do  not  travel  over  mountain 
passes  in  uniform,  nor  are  they  in  the  habit  of  taking 
scoldings  from  strangers.  If,  therefore,  Mr.  Mason 
was  thus  rudely  treated  by  a  German,  he  must  have 
made  a  mistake  in  identifying  him  as  an  officer.  But 
since  it  was  a  German  who  behaved  in  boorish  fash- 
ion, most  Germans  and  lovers  of  Germany  would  wish 
to  apologize  for  that  man's  incivility.  Incivility  is 
never  excusable,  whether  it  takes  the  shape  of  a  cold 
and  insulting  stare  or  of  an  excited  torrent  of  words, 
as  is  not  unusual  with  the  emotionally  quick  Germans. 

The  German  temper,  however,  cools  as  quickly  as  it 
rises,  and  is  no  indication  of  the  worth  of  the  national 
character.  It  is  a  defect  inherited  from  the  past,  which 
Germany  has  only  very  recently  begun  to  outgrow. 
Doctor  Rohrbach,  however,  was  perfectly  right  when 
he  told  his  people  that  the  true  worth  of  their  char- 
acter would  not  become  known  to  men  of  other  nation- 
alities so  long  as  their  surface  dealings  with  foreigners 
revealed  the  unpleasant  relics  of  a  narrow-minded 
past  And  he  was  equally  right  when  he  said  that 
the  real  Germany  was  very  different  from  what  such 
casual  meetings  with  bad-mannered  Germans  led  the 
foreigners  to  believe.     His  countrymen  seemed  to  like 


1 68  Germany's  Point  of  View 

his  frankness,  for  they  read  his  books  by  the  hun- 
dreds of  thousands,  and  lovers  of  Germany  have  de- 
tected a  notable  abatement  of  the  tourist  nuisance 
in  recent  years. 

Mrs.  Mason's  chief  contention  against  Germany, 
however,  is  the  latter's  treatment  of  Belgium  in  the 
present  war.  In  advancing  the  view^s  of  those  who 
differ  from  Mrs.  Mason,  the  subject  may  be  divided 
into  several  parts :  Did  Germany  break  a  sacred  treaty  ? 
Did  she  commit  a  crime  by  violating  the  neutrality 
of  Belgium  even  if  no  binding  treaty  had  existed? 
Was  she  barbarous  or  unnecessarily  cruel  in  conquer- 
ing Belgium?  Is  her  present  treatment  of  Belgium 
unjust  and  inhuman? 

As  to  the  treaty  of  1839,  which  is  the  only  one 
which  England  or  any  pro-Ally  has  claimed  to  have 
been  violated  by  Germany,  the  writer  has  convinced 
himself  that  it  was  void.  Instead  of  arguing  the  case 
he  prefers  to  outline  the  several  steps  taken  in  his 
investigation  which  has  led  to  this  conclusion.  People 
interested  in  the  subject  may  then  check  the  accuracy 
of  his  deductions,  and  whether  they  agree  with  him 
or  not,  will  realize  that  his  conclusions  are  the  result 
of  an  honest  endeavor  to  discover  the  truth. 

The  most  convenient  book  in  which  the  whole  treaty 

can  be  looked  up  is  Edward  Hertslet's  The  Map  of 

Europe  by  Treaty.     The  treaty  was  signed  on  April 

19,  1839,  by  Belgium  on  the  one  hand,  and  England, 

France,   Prussia,  Austria,  and  Russia  on  the  other 

hand,  and  contains  the  following: 

Article  VII.  Belgium,  with  the  limits  specified  in 
Articles  i,  11,  and  iv,  shall  form  an  independent  and  per- 
petually neutral  state.  It  shall  be  bound  to  observe  such 
neutrality  towards  all  other  states. 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  169 

This  treaty,  contrary  to  the  general  belief,  contains 
no  guarantee  on  the  part  of  the  five  signatory  Powers. 

On  the  same  day  another  treaty  was  concluded  be- 
tween Belgium  and  the  King  of  Holland  to  regulate 
the  important  matters  of  carrying  the  separation  of 
Belgium  from  Holland  into  effect.  It  contains  prac- 
tically all  the  articles  of  the  other  treaty,  including  the 
neutrality  article  and  adds  a  few  other  matters. 

Finally  a  third  and  very  brief  treaty  was  concluded 
on  the  same  day,  in  which  the  sovereigns  of  the  five 
signatory  Powers  of  the  first  treaty  declare  '"that  the 
articles  hereunto  annexed  and  forming  the  tenor  of  the 
treaty  concluded  this  day  between  his  majesty,  the 
King  of  the  Belgians,  and  his  majesty,  the  King  of 
the  Netherlands,  Grand  Duke  of  Luxemburg,  are  con- 
sidered as  having  the  same  force  and  validity  as  if 
they  were  textually  inserted  in  the  present  act  and 
that  they  are  thus  placed  under  the  guarantee  of  their 
said  majesties." 

The  neurality  article  states  that  Belgium  ''within 
the  limits  specified  in  Articles  I,  II,  and  IV,  shall  form 
an  independent  and  perpetually  neutral  State.''  The 
Belgium  there  mentioned  was  a  small  state  of  com- 
paratively meagre  resources.  It  is  not  the  same  Bel- 
gium which  today  is  one  of  the  richest  colonial  em- 
pires, owing  to  the  incorporation  of  the  Congo  into 
the  state. 

If  for  any  reason  Belgium  should  have  wished  to 
throw  off,  not  only  in  fact  but  also  openly,  the  tutel- 
age of  the  Great  Powers,  she  could  have  claimed 
that  the  consent  of  the  Powers  to  incorporate  the 
Congo  into  her  body  politic  had  altered  her  limits. 
The  Powers  themselves  had  destroyed  the  Belgium 


170  Germany's  Point  of  View 

of  Article  VII,  which  was  bound  to  be  a  neutral 
state. 

In  1867  France  proposed  to  Prussia  that  the  latter 
should  consent  to  the  former's  annexation  of  Belgium. 
Prussia  did  not  consent,  and  Napoleon's  plan  miscar- 
ried. On  the  very  face  of  it  the  treaty  is  binding  on 
all  the  signatory  Powers  or  on  none.  France's  pro- 
posal nullified  her  share  in  the  treaty,  and  the  deli- 
cate question  arises:  *'Was  the  treaty  nullified  by 
France's  proposal,  but  did  it  come  to  life  again  when 
the  proposal  was  not  carried  out?"  When  France 
offered  to  annex  Belgium  she  did  not  believe  that  there 
was  a  treaty  in  her  way,  because  she  looked  upon 
the  1839  treaties  as  having  aimed  at  the  separation  of 
Belgium  from  Holland,  and  this  separation  having 
been  carried  out  a  generation  ago,  their  usefulness  had 
been  outlived. 

In  1870,  during  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  England 
wished  to  secure  the  neutrality  of  Belgium,  and  nego- 
tiated two  identical  treaties,  in  which  she  promised  to 
fight  by  the  side  of  Prussia  against  France  or  vice 
versa  in  case  the  one  country  or  the  other  invaded 
Belgium.  These  treaties  were  to  remain  in  force 
until  one  year  after  the  treaty  of  peace  between 
France  and  Prussia  and  thereafter  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium,  so  far  as  high  contracting  Powers  (England, 
France,  Russia)  were  concerned,  should  rest  as  here- 
tofore on  the  treaty  of  April  19,   1839. 

These  new  treaties  were  vehemently  debated  in  Par- 
liament, and  quotations  from  Mr.  Gladstone's  speeches 
are  given  both  in  favor  of  and  against  the  theory  that 
he  held  the  treaties  of  1839  to  be  invalid.  Some  who 
have  read'  these  speeches  (and  not  only  the  recently 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  171 

published  extracts)  believe  that  Mr.  Gladstone  con- 
sidered the  time  inopportune  to  decide  the  question  of 
validity,  and  purposely  spoke  vaguely  on  both  sides. 
The  opposition,  voiced  by  Mr.  Osborne,  was  more 
positive.    He  said : 

This  treaty  is  entirely  superfluous,  if  the  treaty  of  1839 
is  worth  anything  at  all.  In  the  eyes  of  Austria  and 
Russia  that  treaty  is  entirely  superseded  by  this.  You 
have  struck  a  blow  at  that  treaty  which  you  can  never 
put  in  the  same  position  again. 

The  Government  argued  that  the  reference  to  the 
treaty  of  1839  at  the  end  of  the  new  treaties  should 
meet  these  objections,  but  Mr.  Osborne  reasoned  that 
this  was  not  so.  If  five  Powers  enter  an  agreement 
by  which  all  are  bound  equally  and  on  even  terms, 
three  cannot  make  a  new  treaty  among  themselves 
on  the  same  subject  without  releasing  the  other  two 
of  all  obligations.  Since  the  earlier  treaty  bound  all 
alike  or  none,  the  remaining  three  could  no  longer 
claim  that  it  was  valid  when  their  own  action  had 
dropped  out  two  of  the  original  signatories. 

From  all  these  considerations  the  validity  of  the 
treaty  of  1839  ^^  the  present  time  has  seemed  to  be 
at  least  doubtful ;  nor  does  this  take  into  consideration 
the  fact  that  the  treaty  was  signed  by  Prussia,  and  that 
Prussia  in  1871  surrendered,  so  far  as  her  foreign 
relations  were  concerned,  her  sovereignty  to  the  Con- 
federation of  German  States  known  as  the  German 
Empire.  Germany,  in  other  words,  has  never  been 
a  party  to  these  treaties  of  1839. 

Let  us,  however,  assume  that  a  competent  court 
should  nevertheless  overrule  all  these  objections,  and 
declare  that  the  treaties  of   1839  continued  in  force 


\']2  Germany's  Point  of  View 

on  August  I,  19 14,  then  one  other  point  deserves 
attention.  Article  VII  reads :  "  Belgium  shall  be 
bound  to  observe  such  neutrality  towards  all  other 
states."  The  guarantee,  moreover,  quoted  above  if 
valid  v^ould  have  been  equally  binding  on  every  one 
of  the  five  signatory  Powers.  Belgium,  however, 
has  not  treated  the  several  Powers  alike,  but  has 
looked  upon  some  as  prospective  allies  and  upon  others 
as  prospective  enemies.  In  extenuation  it  has  been 
claimed  that  events  have  shown  that  Belgium  was 
justly  suspicious  of  Germany,  and  that  she  had  the 
right,  therefore,  of  discussing  precautionary  measures 
with  other  Powers.  Records  of  such  discussions  have 
been  found  and  pubHshed.  Some  people  have  errone- 
ously called  them  treaties,  which,  of  course,  they  are 
not.  They  do,  however,  show  that  England  was  put 
in  possession  of  the  military  secrets  of  Belgium. 

A  change  in  European  politics  might  have  taken 
place.  As  Sir  Edward  Grey  himself  announced  re- 
cently, Belgium  feared  an  invasion  from  England  more 
than  from  anyone  else  in  1913.  Suppose  —  just  for 
the  sake  of  argument  —  that  England  had  invaded 
Belgium,  would  Germany  have  been  bound  by  the 
treaty  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  Belgium?  Would 
she  have  been  obliged  to  fight  against  an  enemy  who 
knew  all  the  military  secrets  of  Belgium?  The  writer 
believes  that  she  would  not  have  been  obliged  to  do 
so.  The  action  of  Belgium  in  giving  away  her  mili- 
tary secrets  to  one  Power  —  that  is,  treating  it  differ- 
ently from  the  others  and  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
others  in  case  of  war  —  released  the  others  from  any 
obligation  under  the  treaty.  Or  to  put  it  more  suc- 
cinctly, it  voided  the  treaty. 


Germany  Broke  No  Treaty  173 

The  writer  strongly  urges  the  reading  in  full  of  the 
treaties  of  1839,  Napoleon's  offer  of  annexation,  Bis- 
marck's refusal,  the  treaties  of  1870,  the  discussions  in 
Parliament  on  these  treaties,  and  the  documents  found 
in  Brussels,  and  he  is  confident  that  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  assumption  will  be  granted  that  no  valid 
treaty  bound  Germany  to  respect  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium. 

To  bring  up  an  obsolete  treaty  as  a  valid  pretext 
for  going  to  war  against  Germany  seemed  so  pre- 
posterous to  the  German  chancellor  that  he  charged  — 
this  is  Mr.  James  A.  Peterson's  explanation  in  the 
Living  Church,  January  2,  1915  —  the  British  ambas- 
sador with  going  to  war  for  "a  scrap  of  paper."  It 
was  not  Germany  who  dragged  the  sacredness  of 
treaties  into  the  dust,  who  flippantly  referred  to  a  valid 
treaty  as  "a  scrap  of  paper."  On  the  contray,  it  was 
England,  the  Germans  believe,  who  showed  her  con- 
tempt for  honorable  treaty  obligations.  She  had  signed 
the  Hague  Conventions  guaranteeing  the  rights  of 
neutrals  in  case  of  war  on  land,  but  she  had  not 
ratified  them,  and  while,  therefore,  not  bound  by  them, 
could  claim  that  she  approved  of  them  —  until  the  test 
came.  The  same  was  true  of  the  Conference  of  Lon- 
don. She  had  invited  the  nations  to  it,  she  was  willing 
to  enjoy  the  credit  of  being  the  leader  in  humane 
proposals  for  the  conduct  of  war.  But  she  did  not 
ratify  them  and  when  the  test  came,  she  renounced 
them. 

It  was  exactly  the  same  with  the  treaty  of  1839. 
She  had  been  unwilling  to  declare  it  either  valid  or 
invalid.  For  years  military  experts  in  Europe,  both 
French  and  German,  have  talked  of  the  necessity  of 


174  Germany's  Point  of  View 

striking  a  blow  through  Belgium,  and  England  never 
raised  her  voice  in  protest  nor  pointed  to  an  existing 
treaty.  When  Sir  Edward  Grey  was  charged  by  the 
Belgian  Government  in  19 13  that  England  intended 
to  be  the  first  to  invade  Belgium,  Sir  Edward,  in  his 
reply  published  by  himself,  made  no  reference  to  an 
existing  treaty,  but  contented  himself  with  pointing 
out  that  such  an  action  would  be  unwise. 

Who  shows  a  greater  disregard  of  sacred  obliga- 
tions, he  who  calls  an  invalid  treaty  ''a  scrap  of 
paper,''  or  he  who  elevates  *'a  scrap  of  paper"  to  the 
rank  of  a  sacred  treaty,  and  relegates  the  conventions 
of  the  Hague  Conference  —  which  were  adopted  at 
his  own  eager  request  —  and  the  conclusions  of  the 
Conference  of  London  —  for  the  humaneness  of  which 
he  had  been  willing  to  receive  praise  —  to  the  level 
of  "scraps  of  paper''? 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  STRAIGHTFORWARD  CONDUCT  OF  GERMANY 

**TTrOULD  you  condemn  Germany  for  going 
T  V  through  Belgium/'  an  American  statesman 
was  asked  the  other  day,  "  if  there  had  been  no  vaHd 
treaty  in  existence  which  forbade  it?''  To  which  he 
repHed  substantially  as  follows:  ''I  should  not  con- 
demn her  in  thq  sense  in  which  I  have  condemned  her 
in  my  public  statements,  but  I  should  say  '  she  did 
wrong/  " 

This  is  exactly  the  view  of  the  German  chancellor, 
and  it  is  the  view  also  of  the  writer.  People  who 
wish  to  form  a  correct  opinion  on  the  subject  should 
separate  the  various  questions  and  judge  each  one 
separately,  just  as  they  would  like  to  have  their  own 
cases  judged  in  a  court  of  law  if  they  were  accused  by 
an  enemy  of  criminal  behavior.  The  treatment  of 
Belgium  during  and  after  the  conquest  is  a  different 
question  from  the  one  which  treats  of  the  right  and 
wrong  of  the  invasion  in  the_first  place. 

The  various  steps  of  the  investigation  which  have 
led  the  friends  of  Germany  to  doubt  the  validity  of 
the  treaties  of  1839  were  discussed  in  the  previous 
chapter,  where  readers  were  urged  to  study  these 
points  and  to  check  the  inferences  drawn  from  them. 
The  writer  himself  feels  the  more  confident  in  his 
belief  that  the  treaties  had  become  void,  since  he  has 
not  yet  found  a  single  authority  on  international  law 

175 


176  Germany's  Point  of  View 

willing  to  stake  his  reputation  on  the  statement  that 
the  treaties  are  valid  and  that  in  a  proper  court  they 
would,  without  doubt,  be  declared  to  be  so.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  terrible  charge  against  Germany 
of  having  disregarded  a  treaty  and  of  having  broken 
her  plighted  word  has  been  believed  in  America  on  the 
unsupported  say-so  of  England.  There  may  be  many 
things  that  can  be  said  against  Germany,  but  those 
who  love  her  have  always  been  proud  in  their  belief 
that  Bismarck  was  right  when  he  said  in  the  Reichstag 
amidst  the  thunderous  applause  of  the  delegates :  ''  We 
Germans  are  in  the  habit  of  keeping  our  word.'' 
Caesar  and  Tacitus  said  that  this  was  a  habit  of  the 
Germans  and  the  historians  have  said  the  same  ever 
since. 

*'  But,''  it  is  asked,  "  why  then  did  the  German 
Chancellor  say,  that  Germany  was  doing  wrong  by 
going  through  Belgium?  If  there  was  no  treaty  to 
hinder  her,  she  only  did  what  all  nations  have  done 
at  some  time  or  another.  Quite  recently  a  glowing 
account  of  Jackson's  victory  at  New  Orleans  stated 
that  his  victory  would  have  been  impossible  without 
the  help  of  Captain  Samuel  Chester  Reid,  and  that  the 
latter,  in  order  to  delay  the  British  fleet,  had  to  violate 
the  neutrality  of  Portuguese  waters.  The  American 
occupation  of  Vera  Cruz  was  a  violation  of  neutral 
territory,  since  no  war  had  been  declared.  Japan  and 
England  recently  violated  the  neutrality  of  China. 
France  and  England  have  violated,  and  have  apologized 
for  violating,  the  neutrality  of  Switzerland  on  their 
raids  from  the  air  on  the  German  Zeppelin  sheds.  (If 
their  bombs  had  hit  their  marks,  the  apology  to  Swit- 
zerland would  have  done  Germany  much  good !)  Japan 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany     lyy 

invaded  Korea  without  a  declaration  of  war,  and  both 
Russia  and  Japan  fought  their  war  on  the  neutral 
territory  of  Manchuria.  In  short,  if  there  was  no 
treaty  in  force  which  forbade  the  invasion  of  Belgium, 
why  should  the  Chancellor  have  said  that  Germany 
was  doing  wrong?"  This  is  the  answer:  Because,  he 
is,  as  Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart  said  before  the 
Economic  Club  of  Providence,  on  January  8,  a  singu- 
larly honest,  sincere,  and  upright  man.  The  Chancellor 
on  August  4,  1914,  had  no  proofs  which  he  cared  to 
lay  before  the  world  to  the  effect  that  Belgium  was 
not  sincere  in  her  desire  to  remain  neutral  in  the 
coming  war.  And  until  such  proofs  were  presented 
Germany  had  no  moral  excuse  for  invading  Belgium. 
Legally  this  step  was  exactly  like  the  American 
occupation  of  Vera  Cruz,  which  some  believed  to  be 
necessary  while  others  doubted  it.  Both  steps  were 
wrong,  and  the  German  Chancellor  had  the  courage 
to  say  so.  The  American  invasion  of  Vera  Cruz  very 
fortunately  was  not  followed  by  war.  The  Belgian 
invasion  was  accompanied  by  an  ultimatum  and  war 
ensued. 

There  was  at  that  moment  only  one  Power  that 
could  have  prevented  the  war,  and  Americans  of  Ger- 
man birth  will  always  regret  that  this  one  Power,  their 
new  home,  took  no  steps  to  this  effect.  If  America 
had  boldly  said  to  Germany :  "  Take  back  your  troops 
and  your  ultimatum,  you  are  breaking  The  Hague 
conventions,  which  you  and  I  have  ratified,"  and 
Germany  had  replied :  *'  Belgium  is  no  longer  neutral, 
for  I  have  unimpeachable  proof  that  France  intends 
to  attack  me  through  Belgium,  with  the  latter's  con- 
sent " ;  and  if  America  had  then  said :  "  Show  me  your 


178  Germany's  Point  of  View 

proofs/'  and  had  said  to  England:  "You  are  on  the 
spot,  and  while  you  have  not  ratified  The  Hague  con- 
ventions concerning  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals, 
you  say  that  the  treaty  of  1839  binds  you  to  defend 
the  neutrality  of  Belgium.  Authorize  me  to  tell  Ger- 
many that  her  fear  of  a  French  attack,  through  Bel- 
gium, is  vain,  because  you  will  come  to  her  assistance, 
if  France  should  move  into  Belgium'' — if  America 
had  done  this,  it  would  have  called  the  bluff  either  of 
Germany  or  of  England,  and  might  have  prevented  the 
war. 

Germany  has  since  then  published  a  number  of 
documents  which  she  claims  to  have  found  in  Belgium 
and  which  prove  that  Belgium  was  de  facto  no  longer 
neutral.  If  these  proofs  are  accepted  as  correct,  Ger- 
many's action,  which  the  Chancellor  called  wrong, 
becomes  excusable.  It  is,  however,  asking  a  good  deal 
of  those  whose  sympathies  are  on  the  other  side  to 
believe  the  unsupported  statement  of  the  German  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  have  the  same  confidence  in  the 
Chancellor's  honesty  as  the  people  have  who  know  him. 
No  fault,  therefore,  can  be  found  with  those  who 
prefer  to  rest  the  case  for  the  present  with  the  Chan- 
cellor's confession  of  wrong. 

They  should,  however,  realize  that  even  if  this  con- 
fession of  wrong  must  stand,  the  condemnation  due 
for  it  is  not  more  than  has  been  due  in  recent  years 
to  practically  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  including 
America.  A  wrong  is  not  a  greater  wrong  because  its 
unfortunate  results  come  more  forcibly  home  to  us; 
nor  will  the  just  man  demand  a  heavier  punishment 
for  his  enemy  than  for  his  friend,  if  both  have  broken 
the  same  law. 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany     179 

In  view  of  these  observations  the  criticism  (see  Mrs. 
Mason's  letter  in  the  previous  chapter)  that  Germany 
had  "  cynically  ignored  the  fundamental  laws  of  Chris- 
tendom, whether  technical  or  not/'  can  have  no  refer- 
ence to  the  actual  entry  of  Germany  into  Belgium, 
but  must  refer  to  her  conduct  in  and  treatment  of 
Belgium.  "What  would  we  not  give,"  says  Mrs. 
Mason,  "  if  a  voice  like  yours  should  be  lifted  in  stern 
rebuke  instead  of  in  defense  of  Germany?  Then 
faith  that  Germany's  conscience  was  not  dead  would 
again  flicker  into  life." 

Mrs.  Mason  and  the  majority  of  sincere  people  shar- 
ing her  views  have  formed  their  opinions  on  the  ac- 
counts of  German  atrocities  which  they  have  read 
either  in  the  papers  or  in  private  letters  from  friends 
in  countries  hostile  to  Germany.  If  the  writer  had 
believed  these  stories,  including  the  so-called  official 
reports,  or  if  he  had  believed  only  a  small  part  of  them, 
he  would  have  raised  his  voice  in  protest  long  ago. 
He  is,  however,  convinced  that  they  are  false,  and  that 
this  can  be  proved. 

On  November  20,  1914,  a  Boston  physician,  Dr. 
Robert  W.  Lovett,  called  on  the  writer  on  a  special 
errand.  Dr.  Lovett  had  received  a  cablegram  from 
his  personal  friend,  Lord  Fisher,  the  British  First  Sea 
Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  who  requested  his  American 
friends  to  join  in  a  petition  to  President  Wilson.  He 
had  sent  them  a  copy  of  the  message  cabled  to  the 
President,  in  which  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  urged  to  ask  the  German  Government  as  a  per- 
sonal favor  to  him  (Mr.  Wilson)  to  release  on  parole 
Admiral  Neald  and  Mrs.  Neald.  Mrs.  Neald  is  a 
daughter  of   Lord   Fisher.     Both  were   detained  in 


i8o  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Germany.  The  Boston  friends  of  Lord  Fisher  believed 
that  Mr.  Wilson,  owing  to  his  declared  stand  of  neu- 
trality,  would  be  unable  to  act,  and  that  anyhow  the 
proper  way  of  appeal  was  to  the  German  Government 
directly.  They,  therefore,  requested  the  writer  to 
bring  the  sad  case  (both  Admiral  and  Mrs.  Neald  are 
in  poor  health,  the  latter  being  threatened  with  blind- 
ness) to  the  attention  of  the  representatives  of  the 
German  Government  in  this  country.  Knowing  that 
the  German  Government  would  wish  to  be  informed 
of  the  circumstances  the  writer  was  glad  to  forward 
the  information  given  him,  which  was  accompanied 
by  the  following  letter,  published  here  with  the  consent 
of  the  sender: 

My  Dear  Dr.  Von  Mach  : 

I  beg  to  enclose  the  promised  letters,  and  I  am  prepared 
to  promise  you  that  if  Admiral  Neald's  request  is  granted 
I  will  do  my  utmost  to  secure  in  the  press  the  widest 
publicity  in  acknowledgment  of  Germany's  action. 

With  many  thanks  for  your  courtesy  in  listening  to  me, 
I  am,  Very  sincerely  yours, 

Boston,  Nov.  20.  (Signed)     Robert  W.  Lovett. 

Two  days  later  Dr.  Lovett  was  informed  that  his 
request  had  been  acted  upon  favorably  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  German  Government  in  America  and 
forwarded  abroad.  On  December  2  the  following 
item  appeared  in  the  press: 

On  personal  representations  from  President  Wilson, 
through  Ambassador  Gerard,  Germany  has  released  Ad- 
miral Neald,  retired,  of  the  British  navy,  and  his  wife, 
who  were  military  prisoners  at  a  German  health  resort. 

Admiral  Neald,  a  son-in-law  of  Admiral  Fisher,  First 
Lord  of  the  British  Admiralty,  was  left  at  a  German  spa 
during  the  exodus  of  refugees  at  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
It  was  reported  that  he  and  Mrs.  Neald  were  held  as  mili- 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany    i8i 

tary  prisoners  in  retaliation  for  the  detention  in  England 
of  a  son  of  Admiral  von  Tirpitz  of  the  German  navy, 
captured  in  the  engagement  off  Cuxhaven.  President 
Wilson  made  representations  on  an  appeal  from  the  British 
ambassador  here,  and  today  Ambassador  Gerard  cabled 
news  of  the  release  of  the  Admiral  and  Mrs.  Neald. 

The  heading  given  this  article  read:  "Germany 
Yields  to  Wilson."  Dr.  Lovett,  realizing  that  this 
notice  v^as  inaccurate  in  several  respects  and  that  it 
did  not  "  secure  in  the  press  the  widest  publicity  in 
acknowledgment  of  Germany's  action,"  which  he  had 
promised,  immediately  obtained  an  introduction  to  the 
manager  of  the  Associated  Press,  wrote  to  the  State 
Department  where  the  notice  had  been  given  out,  and 
in  every  way  tried  to  redeem  his  word,  busy  man 
that  he  is.  He  has  been  unable  to  induce  the  Asso- 
ciated Press  to  supplement  their  first  erroneous  despatch 
by  another  which  should  be  just  to  Germany  and  call 
attention  to  the  remarkable  act  of  kindness  of  the 
German  Government,  which  released  the  daughter  of 
Lord  Fisher  because  she  was  ill,  and  did  not  make 
her  release  dependent  on  any  corresponding  act  of 
kindness  to  Germans  in  British  detention  camps. 

This  incident  is  related  to  show  that  it  is  not  easy  at 
present  to  bring  a  story  for  general  circulation  into 
the  American  press  from  which  a  conclusion  favorable 
to  Germany  could  be  drawn.  Additional  points  of 
interest  in  connection  with  the  Associated  Press  des- 
patch as  it  actually  appeared  are  as  follows : 

I.  According  to  a  reply  from  the  State  Department 
to  Dr.  Lovett,  the  original  despatch  from  Ambassador 
Gerard  was  dated  November  29.  Why  was  it  not 
given  out  until  December  2  ? 


1 82  Germany's  Point  of  View 

2.  The  telegram  received  at  the  State  Department 
read :  "  In  view  of  President's  personal  recommenda- 
tions orders  have  been  given  for  release  of  Admiral 
Neald." 

3.  The  whole  second  paragraph,  which  claims  that 
Admiral  and  Mrs.  Neald  were  held  as  "prisoners  of 
war "  and  in  ''  retaliation "  for  the  detention  of  the 
son  of  the  German  Admiral  von  Tirpitz,  is  contrary  to 
fact.  Admiral  Neald,  who  is  not  yet  sixty,  was  de- 
tained at  Bad  Nauheim  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war, 
while  Mrs.  Neald,  was,  of  course,  not  held  as  a  prisoner 
of  war  at  all.  The  paragraph  was  added  with  the 
view  of  lessening  any  favorable  comment  the  release 
of  the  admiral  and  his  wife  might  excite.  Who  added 
it?  Did  the  State  Department  falsify  the  news?  Did 
the  Associated  Press  falsify  the  news?  Why  were 
not  only  the  local  manager,  but  also  the  general  man- 
ager of  the  Associated  Press  in  New  York  unwilling 
to  correct  the  wrong  news  they  had  sent  out? 

4.  Before  placing  implicit  faith  in  the  news  they 
read,  Americans  of  whatever  sympathies  should  rea- 
lize that  neither  of  the  two  great  sources  of  their  news- 
supply,  the  State  Department  and  the  Associated  Press, 
are  flowing  today  with  their  accustomed  purity. 

It  is  immaterial  for  the  argument  in  hand  whether 
the  managers  of  both  sources  are  laboring  under 
unusually  difficult  conditions  or  whether  they  could 
do  better  if  they  would.  The  fact  remains  that  the 
searcher  after  the  truth  is  obliged  to  realize  that  not 
all  the  news  he  receives  is  honest  news. 

Why  was  ex-Premier  Giolitti's  second  speech  garbled 
and  printed  in  America  to  show  that  Italy  was  pro- Ally 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany     183 

and  his  first  speech  suppressed  in  which  he  said  that 
not  even  the  cynicism  of  a  Machiavelli  would  have 
stooped  so  low  as  to  believe  that  Italy  could  enter  the 
war  against  her  two  allies,  Germany  and  Austria  ? 

Why  was  his  second  speech  misrepresented  to  say 
that  in  1913  Austria  and  the  Kaiser  had  been  detained 
from  Undertaking  an  unjust  expedition  against  Servia 
only  by  the  greatest  exertions  on  the  part  of  Italy, 
when  every  well  equipped  newspaper  office  could  have 
quoted  from  the  British  Annual  Register  for  19 13 
these  words: 

In  foreign  politics  the  greatest  achievement  of  Germany 
this  year  was  the  prevention  of  a  European  war,  which 
would  in  all  probability  have  broken  out  if  the  Emperor 
William  had  not  plainly  declared  on  the  one  hand  to 
Austria-Hungary  that  he  would  not  support  her  should 
she  be  involved  in  a  war  with  Russia  as  the  consequence 
of  an  attack  by  her  upon  Servia,  and  on  the  other  to 
Russia  that  if  she  attacked  Austria-Hungary,  notwith- 
standing her  abstinence  from  active  intervention  in  the 
Balkans,  he  would  fight  by  the  side  of  his  Austrian  ally. 

Why  was  it  reported  that  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry 
shouted  in  the  Italian  Parliament  for  the  Allies  and 
against  Austria,  and  why  were  the  Italian  papers  not 
quoted  which  said  that  they  were  glad  some  delegates 
had  committed  this  indiscretion  because  their  treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  their  colleagues  had  shown  how 
few  people  held  such  abandoned  views? 

Why  are  individual  Swedes  writing  anti-German 
articles  in  Lord  Northcliffe's  London  papers  quoted, 
while  the  almost  unanimously  German  friendly  Swed- 
ish press  is  not  even  mentioned  in  America? 

Why  are  the  Swiss  papers  not  mentioned  in  America 
unless  they  happen  to  contain  an  article  which  can 


184  Germany's  Point  of  View 

be  given  an  anti-German  twist  ?  Why  was  the  address 
of  Spanish  university  professors,  sent  as  a  sign  of 
unwavering  confidence  to  their  German  colleagues, 
suppressed  here? 

These  are  all  questions  which  every  honest  man  and 
woman  should  answer  to  his  or  her  satisfaction  before 
feeling  justified  in  believing  the  accusations  against 
Germany  and  disregarding  the  official  German  reports 
of  investigation.  The  "round  robin,"  too,  which 
was  signed  by  seven  reputable  American  newspaper 
men  and  which  exonerated  Germany  from  charges 
of  cruelty  and  brutality,  should  be  given  greater  weight. 
At  times  it  almost  seems  as  if  the  glaring  profusion 
of  stories  concerning  German  atrocities  had  blinded 
people  just  as  the  searchlights  of  an  automobile  will 
blind  them  for  a  time  and  render  them  incapable  of 
seeing  anything  else. 

Tucked  away  in  an  inconspicuous  place,  a  few 
papers  of  December  30,  1914,  brought  the  following 
notice.  It  was  printed  as  the  last  paragraph  of  a 
despatch  from  Washington,  which  was  featured  in 
these  words :  "  Dum-dums  made  here  can't  be  used  by 
Allies."     The  notice  itself  read: 

State  Department  officials  have  also  been  informed  by 
an  American  diplomat  just  back  from  Europe  that  he 
found  no  ground  for  charges  that  Belgians  have  been 
mutilated  by  German  soldiers. 

Under  ordinary  conditions  most  papers,  after  having 
printed  for  weeks  and  months  stories  of  mutilated 
Belgians,  and  having  given  credence  to  so-called 
"official"  reports  which  made  such  charges,  would 
have  given  this  notice  a  prominent  place  under  the 
caption  "  Germans  in  Belgium  Exonerated."    In  years 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany    185 

to  come,  after  the  passions  have  cooled,  it  will  be  one 
of  the  inexplicable  mysteries  of  the  age,  why  this  was 
not  done.  People  will  realize  that  most  atrocity  stories 
were  forged  consciously  or  unconsciously,  as  that 
Scotch  girl  forged  her  two  letters  which  purported 
having  been  sent  by  a  Belgian  priest. 

It  may,  however,  be  claimed  that  the  Germans  have 
been  guilty  of  acts  of  cruelty,  if  not  of  atrocity.  Know- 
ing the  Germans  as  he  does  the  writer  does  not 
believe  this.  Executions  of  civilians  have  undoubtedly 
taken  place.  This  is  most  regrettable,  but  the  moral 
guilt  of  Germany  depends  on  the  question  whether  the 
excesses  of  the  Belgians  demanded  such  a  treatment 
at  the  hands  of  any  army.  A  notice  which  appeared 
in  the  Socialist  papers  of  Europe,  and  which  is  here 
quoted  from  the  Vorwaerts  of  August  17,  1914,  stated 
that  M.  Vandervelde,  the  Socialist  member  of  the 
Belgian  cabinet,  had  urged  the  Belgian  Government  to 
issue  a  proclamation  asking  the  people  to  desist  from 
their  criminal  excesses  against  Germany,  but  that  his 
motion  had  been  voted  down.  In  some  places  local 
proclamations  were  issued  and  no  tragedies  ensued. 
An  account  of  such  proclamations  which  was  given 
by  a  Belgian  contributor  to  the  Transcript  in  the  fall 
of  19 14,  was  found,  upon  investigation,  to  have  refer- 
ence only  to  proclamations  issued  by  some  local  author- 
ities. If  M.  Vandervelde's  suggestion  had  been  adopted 
much  sorrow  might  have  been  spared. 

In  conclusion  an  address  may  be  given  which  an 
American  newspaper  man  delivered  before  the  Ameri- 
can colony  in  Berlin  shortly  before  Christmas,  1914. 
Ambassador  Gerard  and  Consul  General  Lay  were 
present.    The  speaker  was  Lieutenant  Colonel  Edwin 


1 86  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Emerson,  who  fought  for  his  country  in  the  Rough 
Riders  during  the  Spanish  War.  He  is  a  graduate  of 
Harvard,  in  the  class  of  1891,  and  has  been  a  war 
correspondent  for  Collier  s  Weekly,  Chicago  Daily 
News,  Westminster  Gazette,  Black  and  White,  Le 
Monde  Illustre,  and  last  autumn  was  sent  to  Belgium 
by  the  New  York  World.    He  said : 

My  activities  in  the  war  zone  were  naturally  those  of  a 
neutral.  I  am  here  on  leave  of  absence,  and  our  American 
Government  consequently  has  no  official  interest  in  my 
doings.  The  fact  that  I  was  a  war  correspondent  from  a 
neutral  country  made  it  possible  for  me  to  observe  matters 
more  freely  and  to  draw  more  unbiased  conclusions  than  I 
probably  could  have  done  in  an  official  position.  This 
brings  me  to  the  word  "  neutrality."  We  have  heard  much 
in  recent  months  of  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality. 
It  is  even  said  that  this  is  the  only  reason  why  England 
is  fighting;  for  England  is,  of  course,  the  protector  of  the 
small  countries,  as  the  Boers,  the  Persians,  and  the  Greeks 
know  from  their  own  experiences.  Once  even  the  Amer- 
ican colonies  were  small  countries,  and  we  Americans 
know  how  to  appraise  the  English  enthusiasm  for  ob- 
serving the  rights  of  neutrals.  In  the  years  of  our 
greatest  trial  —  I  mean  our  great  Civil  War,  from  1861- 
1864  —  the  English  sent  several  privateers  to  harass  us. 
There  was,  especially,  the  famous  "Alabama,"  who  suc- 
ceeded, with  English  assistance,  to  dispose  of  our  marine 
trade  so  completely  that  we  have  not  yet  recovered  from 
this  blow. 

And  what  is  true  of  England  is  true  of  her  dear  allies. 
I  was  a  war  correspondent  during  the  Russo-Japanese 
War,  and  I  was  present  when  the  Japanese  invaded  the 
neutral  state  of  Korea  without  first  troubling  to  declare 
war,  and  when  they  proceeded  to  fight  out  the  war  in  the 
likewise  neutral  province  of  Manchuria.  Then  nobody 
took  the  least  notice  of  it.  On  the  contrary,  England  did 
her  best  to  support  these  flagrant  violations  of  Chinese 
neutrality,  just  as  she  did  the  other  day  in  the  case  of 
Tsingtao.  When  Germany  does  anything  like  this  it  is 
"  violation  of  neutrality " ;  when  England  does  it  it  is 
"  fair  play." 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany     187 

When  I  was  in  Belgium  recently  I  learned  from  my 
own  observation  that  the  so-called  Belgian  neutrality 
toward  Germany  did  not  amount  to  much  —  it  was  nothing 
but  lurking  hostility. 

I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  known  here  that  it  is  due 
to  the  American  ambassador  in  Brussels  that  nothing 
similar  to  what  happened  in  Louvain  took  place  in 
Brussels.  The  mayor,  Mr.  Marx,  had  actually  given 
orders  to  the  citizens'  garde  to  shoot  on  the  Germans, 
when  our  ambassador  urged  them  not  to  do  it.  Our 
ambassador  also  told  me  that  Field  Marshal  von  der  Goltz 
as  governor  general  of  Belgium  had  made  a  splendid 
impression  upon  him,  and  that  the  official  business  was 
being  carried  on  better  under  him  than  under  the  Belgian 
Government. 

In  Louvain,  unfortunately,  we  had  no  American  consul 
who  could  have  prevented  the  people  from  shooting  on  the 
Germans  from  their  houses.  In  Louvain  itself  I  was 
told  by  the  inhabitants  that  the  shooting  had  been  a  ter- 
rible mistake.  They  would  never  have  done  it,  the  people 
of  Louvain  told  me,  if  they  had  not  received  a  secret 
message  from  Antwerp  that  the  garrison  of  Antwerp  had 
been  successful  in  an  extensive  sortie,  that  the  Germans 
were  routed  and  fleeing  toward  Louvain.  When  toward 
evening  a  small  company  of  footsore  German  soldiers 
chanced  to  pass  that  way,  the  ill-informed  people  of 
Louvain  believed  they  had  to  do  with  parts  of  the  scat- 
tered and  badly  beaten  German  army,  and  so  began  to  fire 
on  them. 

Let  me  add  here  as  a  man  versed  in  military  matters 
that  if  I  were  in  a  war  I  should  give  orders  to  act  exactly 
as  the  Germans  did  in  Louvain,  if  hostile  inhabitants  were 
treacherously  shooting  upon  my  soldiers.  I  ask  you,  was 
this  not  the  customary  procedure  of  the  American  soldiers 
in  the  Philippines  ? 

As  a  writer,  I  regret,  of  course,  very  much  that  the 
library  of  Louvain,  which  was  historically  valuable,  was 
burned.  In  war,  however,  fire  and  sword  are  at  work, 
and  very  regrettable  losses  occur  everywhere  and  among 
all  people  who  fight.  The  English  burned  our  library  in 
Washington  during  our  war  with  them  in  1814,  and  I 
myself  happened  to  be  present  in  Vera  Cruz,  this  spring, 
when  our  American  marines  completely  destroyed  the  very 
valuable  library  of  the  Mexican  Naval  Academy. 


i88  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Mr.  Emerson  then  showed  and  described  a  number 
of  pictures,  and  continued: 

After  these  pictures  of  humaneness  and  kindness  shown 
by  the  German  soldiers  to  hungry  children  in  Belgium 
you  will  know  what  to  think  of  the  much-heralded  bar- 
barism of  the  German  Huns.  Impartial  students  of  his- 
tory, I  assure  you,  would  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  a 
highly  civilized  nation  which  up  to  last  August  had  pro- 
duced a  number  of  the  most  eminent  thinkers,  scholars, 
explorers,  poets,  statesmen,  and  countless  benefactors  of 
the  human  race,  should  suddenly  have  changed  into  cruel 
Huns  after  August  4.  At  the  instigation  of  the  enemies 
of  Germany  you  can  read  today  in  the  foreign  press  stories 
of  every  kind  of  cruelty,  brutality,  and  immorality  com- 
mitted by  the  German  officers  and  soldiers. 

I  am  only  one  witness,  but  I  should  like  to  testify  to 
what  I  have  seen  with  my  own  eyes.  I  was,  all  told,  more 
than  one  month  in  the  war  zone,  and  I  have  seen  countless 
prisoners  and  have  spoken  to  many  of  them  perfectly 
freely  and  without  the  intervention  of  the  German  guards. 
There  was  not  one  who  complained  of  being  inhumanly 
treated  by  the  Germans.  Nor  did  I  see  any  officer  or 
soldier  commit  a  brutal  act  against  any  helpless  person 
whatsoever.  During  all  this  time  I  did  not  see  a  single 
intoxicated  soldier,  although  there  is  plenty  of  the  best 
wine  to  be  had  near  the  French  front. 

While  I  was  in  Belgium  and  in  the  north  of  France  I 
have  had  countless  friendly  interviews  with  Belgian  and 
French  women  and  young  girls.  Not  one  ever  complained 
to  me  that  German  soldiers  had  maltreated  her  or  any  of 
her  countrywomen.  This  was  the  more  remarkable  be- 
cause the  Belgian  and  French  women  of  the  districts 
which  have  suffered  by  the  war  hate  the  Germans  from 
the  bottom  of  their  hearts  and  are  not  at  all  backward 
when  they  are  talking  to  neutrals. 

When  I  was  in  Belgium  people  were  talking  a  good 
deal  of  what  they  called  a  famine.  I  traveled  in  my 
automobile  all  through  Belgium,  this  way  and  that  way, 
but  I  found  nowhere  the  actual  hardships  of  a  famine. 
In  certain  localities,  where  no  more  grain  could  be  bought, 
and  where  the  cattle  had  been  lost  or  killed,  the  Germans 
distributed  bread  and  other  food  directly  to  the  inhabit- 
ants, as  you  saw  from  the  pictures  I  showed  you. 


The  Straightforward  Conduct  of  Germany     189 

As  regards  the  generally  good  conditions  under  the 
German  administration,  I  was  actually  astounded.  I  have 
been  through  many  wars,  and  I  can  assure  you  that  the 
people  of  Cuba  during  our  war  there  with  Spain,  and  the 
people  of  Nicaragua  during  the  American  campaign  last 
year,  suffered  much  more  hunger  and  distress  than  the 
Belgian  people  are  suffering  today. 

If  in  the  future  it  should  appear,  as  all  friends  of 
Germany  hope  it  may,  that  Edwin  Emerson  and  the 
official  German  reports  are  right,  and  that  German 
soldiers  far  from  falling  below  the  standard  of  warfare 
as  carried  on  by  the  people  of  Western  civilization 
have  actually  risen  above  it,  American  public  opinion 
will  do  justice  to  them  and  with  wonted  generosity 
make  good  the  mistake  which,  under  existing  condi- 
tions, it  was  almost  impossible  to  avoid.  Being  fully 
convinced  of  this,  the  lovers  of  Germany  and  America 
and  progress  do  not  altogether  regret  the  unfortunate 
turn  which  the  universal  sympathy  for  the  sufferers  ^f 
the  war  has  taken,  for  without  this  turn  people  would 
not  have  realized,  any  more  now  than  in  former 
instances,  how  terrible  are  the  horrors  of  war.  Arma- 
ments alone  do  not  preserve  peace.  They  may  be 
needed,  but  they  must  be  supplemented  by  a  different 
attitude  of  mind  than  characterized  the  several  nations 
of  Europe.  Intemperate  speech,  suspicion  of  one's 
neighbors,  and  insufficient  confidence  in  the  unvarying 
justice  of  one's  own  desires  —  these  were  the  real 
causes  of  the  war.  The  attitude  of  mind  which  can 
preserve  peace  when  the  passions  are  high  is  not  to 
be  had  for  the  asking.  It  is  of  slow  growth.  The  old 
motto:  "In  times  of  peace  prepare  for  war,"  has 
played  the  world  false.  Let  America,  therefore,  adopt 
a  new  motto,  or  rather  a  modification  of  the  old  one : 
"  In  times  of  peace  prepare  to  avoid  war." 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  ENGLISH  WEB  OF  CALUMNY 

LOTHAR  DE  BUNSEN,  a  cousin  of  Sir  Maurice 
de  Bunsen,  who  was  the  British  ambassador  in 
Vienna  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  Hves  in  Scar- 
borough. A  few  days  before  the  attack  on  Scarbor- 
ough by  the  German  warships  he  wrote  a  letter  to  his 
kinsfolk,  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Ernest  F.  Henderson  of  Bos- 
ton and  Monadnock,  which  contains  this  sentence: 

Here  we  have  continual  scares  of  invasion  —  much  to 
the  joy  of  Bernard  and  Ronald.  The  whole  coast  is  an 
armed  camp  and  one  does  not  know  what  will  happen. 

Compare  this  with  Sir  Henry  Luce's  communication 
to  the  Nation  of  January  14,  which  said  —  referring 
to  the  raid  on  Scarborough: 

So  far  from  the  nation  being  terrorized  by  this  attack 
on  defenceless  towns,  with  the  concomitant  circumstance 
of  the  slaughter  of  civilians,  including  women  and  chil- 
dren, the  result  has  been  a  distinct  incentive  to  recruiting. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Lothar  de  Bunsen 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about  when  he  said  that 
"the  whole  coast"  was  ''an  armed  camp,"  and  that 
Sir  Henry  Luce  and  other  newspaper  men  who  en- 
larged on  the  fact  that  Scarborough  was  defence- 
less, were  mistaken.  The  realization  that  they  have 
been  sending  out  falsehoods  will  come  as  a  shock  to 
these  gentlemen  when  they  discover  —  perhaps  not 
until  after  the  war  —  that  their  own  Government  has 

190 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny  191 

connived  in  the  spreading  of  erroneous  information. 
In  their  defence  it  may  be  said  that  they  have  few 
or  no  opportunities  at  the  present  time  to  ascertain 
the  truth.  But  the  respectable  American  magazines 
who  add  the  weight  of  their  authority  to  these  false- 
hoods by  publishing  them  are  more  fortunately  situ- 
ated, and  it  is  greatly  to  be  hoped  that  they  will  not 
hereafter  permit  their  sympathies  to  blind  them  against 
the  truth. 

All  over  the  country  thoughtful  people  have  begun 
to  see  through  the  web  of  calumny  which  the  British 
Press  Bureau  has  endeavored  to  spin  about  Germany, 
and  even  the  most  prominent  are  no  longer  diffident 
in  expressing  their  views.  The  late  Curtis  Guild, 
ex-governor  of  Massachusetts,  sent  the  writer  a  per- 
sonal letter,  from  which  the  following  paragraphs  are 
quoted : 

My  Dear  Doctor: 

The  attitude  of  the  United  States  must  and  should  be 
neutral.  Neutrality,  however,  in  my  opinion,  does  not 
consist  in  attacking  one  belligerent  and  defending  the 
other.  You  will  not  blame  me,  of  course,  for  a  warm 
affection  for  a  country  where  I  have  been  treated  with  the 
greatest  kindness  and  courtesy,  shown  me  in  Russia.  I 
have  no  objection,  however,  to  being  quoted  as  a  witness 
to  the  courtesy  and  magnanimity  often  shown  by  Germany 
and  Austria  to  their  prisoners. 

The  son-in-law  of  Lord  Fisher,  the  first  sea  lord  of  the 
Admiralty,  was  detained  as  a  prisoner  of  war  in  Germany. 
The  condition  of  his  health  was  such  that  through  Amer- 
ican friends  representations  were  made  to  the  imperial 
German  Government  petitioning  for  his  release.  Dr. 
Robert  W.  Lovett,  my  college  chum,  was  the  prime  mover 
in  the  case,  but  I  had  something  to  do  with  it.  The 
German  Government,  with  great  magnanimity,  released 
on  parole  Admiral  and  Mrs.  Neald. 

I  was  personally  called  upon  at  an  earlier  date  in  regard 


19^  Germany's  Point  of  View 

to  a  Scottish  member  of  Parliament  and  his  son,  who  were 
caught  in  the  network  of  war  at  an  Austrian  watering- 
place.  They  were  non-combatants,  but  the  son  had  been 
most  active  as  a  soldier  in  the  Boer  War.  There  being  no 
British  ambassador,  of  course,  at  Vienna,  the  case  was, 
through  American  friends,  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  American  ambassador  at  Vienna,  in  whose  hands 
English  affairs  now  are.  Without  any  delay  or  interposi- 
tion of  red  tape  these  two  Englishmen  were  sent  on  their 
way  rejoicing. 

Your  appeal  for  fair  play  the  other  day  was  so  sincere 
and  so  earnest  that,  though  I  have  tried  to  keep  myself 
neutral  except  so  far  as  my  sympathies  for  the  wounded 
and  starving  in  the  European  country  (Russia)  I  know 
best  are  concerned,  I  have  no  objection  to  your  quoting  me. 

The  war  is  bad  enough  as  it  is  without  attempts  by  any 
persons  to  make  out  any  of  those  engaged  as  human 
monsters.  Very  cordially  yours, 

(Signed)     Curtis  Guild. 
Boston,  Jan.  ij,  1915. 

"  Human  monsters  ! ''  This  is,  however,  the  very 
picture  which  some  people  have  drawn  of  the  Ger- 
mans in  Belgium,  and  which  other,  and  generally 
very  good  people,  have  repeated,  because  in  the  good- 
ness of  their  hearts  they  have  not  believed  it  possible 
that  anybody  could  invent  such  terrible  charges. 

Germany  is  the  only  belligerent  in  the  western  the- 
atre of  hostilities  who  is  carrying  on  the  war  in  the 
enemy's  country.  This  assures  her  many  material 
advantages,  but  naturally  increases  also  the  resentment 
of  the  population  of  the  occupied  districts.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  horrors  of  war,  men  killing  men,  there  are 
the  hardships  of  war,  men  eating  up  the  stores  of 
food,  and  millions  trying  to  subsist  where  heretofore 
only  thousands  found  their  livelihood.  During  the 
first  enthusiasm,  when  the  people's  own  troops  pass 
along  on  what  is  confidently  expected  will  be  a  march 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny  193 

of  victory,  the  people  gladly  feed  them  from  well- 
filled  larders.  But  when  the  soldiers  pass  the  same 
way  again  on  a  hurried  retreat,  and  the  enemy  entrench 
themselves,  and  through  weary  months  are  forced  to 
remain  in  the  conquered  territory,  then  the  giving 
becomes  a  burden,  even  if  the  food  is  paid  for  by  the 
victorious  commanders.  Despair  takes  hold  of  the 
non-combatants,  and  they  blame  not  war  and  conse- 
quently all  who  play  this  gruesome  game,  but  the  par- 
ticular participant  in  it  whose  prowess  or  lucky  star 
has  made  him  the  master  of  their  district.  This  is 
natural.  Outsiders,  however,  who  refuse  to  let  their 
sympathies  blind  their  judgment,  should  distinguish 
between  the  necessary  hardships  of  war  and  those 
which  a  humane  conqueror  could  avoid. 

In  the  present  case  even  friends  of  Germany  have 
been  not  a  little  troubled  by  some  practices  which 
have  seemed  to  be  indefensible.  While  America  is 
generously  pouring  out  food,  money,  and  supplies, 
the  papers  almost  weekly  report  new  levies  of  money 
or  supplies  made  by  the  Germans  in  the  very  districts 
which  America  is  called  upon  to  feed.  Terrible  ac- 
counts of  suffering  continue  to  arrive  from  Belgium, 
while  no  official  contradictions  of  the  excessive  Ger- 
man demands  seem  to  be  issued.  At  this  distance 
it  is  impossible  to  argue  the  case.  A  few  general 
observations,  however,  may  be  of  help  for  those  who 
wish  to  form  their  own  conclusions. 

A  community  may  be  perfectly  well  able  to  make 
a  substantial  contribution  and  yet  exhibit  among  its 
poorer  people  an  appalling  degree  of  suffering.  Every- 
body will  agree  that  this  should  not  be  so,  but  it  is 
so.     During  an  exceedingly  cold  night  in  New  York, 


194  Germany's  Point  of  View 

a  few  weeks  ago,  the  lodging  houses  were  so  full  that 
in  a  particular  house  four  hundred  and  twenty-eight 
men  were  herded  into  one  room.  They  were  so  tightly 
packed  that  lying  or  sitting  down  was  impossible  for 
anyone.  Every  piece  of  furniture  had  been  removed 
to  gain  space.  The  men  stood  up  all  night,  each  one 
supported  by  those  about  him,  and  thus  they  —  slept! 
Many  were  very  hungry.  This  happened  in  New 
York,  the  richest  community  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  able  to  pay  millions  of  dollars  each  year  in 
taxes. 

Many  of  the  so-called  "  indemnities  "  levied  by  the 
Germans  in  Belgian  cities  are  taxes.  When  an  army 
occupies  a  city  or  a  district  it  becomes  responsible 
for  its  administration,  and  by  international  law  has 
not  only  the  right  but  also  the  duty  of  collecting  the 
taxes  and  disbursing  them  as  the  needs  of  the  place 
demand.  In  Brussels,  for  instance,  and  doubtless  in 
other  cities  also,  the  Belgian  policemen  and  other  civil 
employees  have  been  retained  at  their  former  salaries. 
Why  should  these  salaries  not  be  paid  by  the  people 
for  whose  benefit  they  are  disbursed?  Often  the 
Germans  found  an  empty  municipal  exchequer  when 
they  arrived,  the  previous  government  having  fled  with 
the  available  cash.  In  such  cases  an  immediate  con- 
tribution became  necessary,  which  was  as  annoying 
to  the  Belgians  as  it  is  to  anybody  to  have  to  pay  his 
taxes  twice  because  the  town  treasurer  had  run  away 
with  the  first  levy. 

In  addition  to  these  perfectly  legitimate  contribu- 
tions, the  German  commanders  have  occasionally  levied 
what  has  been  called  punitive  contributions.  It  is 
these  extraordinary  taxes  which  at  this  distance  neither 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny  195 

the  friends  of  Germany  can  undertake  to  defend,  nor 
her  opponents  claim  to  be  sufficiently  well  informed 
to  condemn. 

On  January  16  the  Belgian  Legation  in  Washing- 
ton issued  the  following  notice  : 

According  to  a  cable  received  by  the  Belgian  Legation 
today,  the  city  of  Courtrai,  Belgium,  has  been  fined  ten 
million  marks  (about  $2,500,000)  by  Germany,  not  for 
disobedience,  but  for  obeying  the  orders  of  German 
commanders. 

The  circumstances  are  as  follows :  Two  German  officers. 
Commander  Maxerman  and  Commandant  Pschors,  arrived 
at  Courtrai  and  ordered  the  municipal  authorities  to  have 
all  arms  deposited  in  the  Tower  of  Broel,  under  threat  of 
a  heavy  penalty.  In  compliance  with  these  instructions,  all 
arms  were  deposited  in  the  place  named. 

Then  there  arrived  a  new  German  commander,  Com- 
mandant van  Kneesebeck,  who  goes  to  the  Tower  of  Broel, 
sees  the  arms  in  the  place  where  the  other  German  com- 
manders had  ordered  them  put,  and  fines  the  city  of 
Courtrai  ten  million  marks,  under  pretext  that  it  is  a 
clandestine  deposit  of  arms,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
order  of  his  predecessors  to  place  the  arms  in  the  Tower 
of  Broel  was  well  known  to  everybody  and  was  even 
placarded  on  the  walls  of  Courtrai. 

There  are  in  Courtrai  at  present  no  Belgian  officials 
who  could  ofBcially  report  this  incident  to  M.  Habe- 
nith,  the  Belgian  minister  in  Washington.  It  is,  there- 
fore, based  on  private  information.  Those  who  are 
looking  for  injustice  from  Germany  will  believe  it; 
others  will  doubt  it,  because  it  is  too  obviously  a  ridicu- 
lous act  of  oppression.  It  is  here  quoted  as  contain- 
ing an  indication  of  conditions  under  which  punitive 
contributions  may  be  levied.  If  a  community  main- 
tains clandestine  deposits  of  arms,  the  occupying 
Power  has  the  right  to  punish  it,  and  the  most  humane 
punishment  is  a  fine.     Such  fines  should  be  commen- 


196  Germany's  Point  of  View 

surate  not  only  to  the  degree  of  guilt,  but  also  to  the 
ability  of  the  community  to  bear  them.  Looked  at 
from  this  angle  the  levying  of  the  contribution  itself 
is  no  act  of  oppression,  although  it  may  become  so 
when  it  is  disproportionately  large,  or  levied  not  for 
cause  but  on  a  pretext.  Judged  by  the  accounts  of 
those  who  have  actually  been  in  Belgium,  like  Messrs. 
Irvin  Cobb  or  James  O'Donnell  Bennett,  there  is  not 
one  scintilla  of  truth  in  the  assertion  that  Germany 
had  unjustly  wielded  her  power  of  levying  punitive 
contributions. 

By  all  odds  the  most  important  and  enlightening 
discussion  of  this  subject  was  printed  in  the  New 
York  Times  and  Sun  January  17.  It  was  written  by 
James  O'Donnell  Bennett  in  reply  to  Sir  Arthur  Conan 
Doyle.  Unfortunately  for  Boston  readers  their  own 
Sunday  paper,  which  is  syndicated  with  the  Times,  did 
not  print  this  article.  Add  to  this  conscious  policy  of 
suppression  practiced  by  some  papers,  the  difficulty  of 
obtaining  authentic  news  from  the  war  zone,  and  the 
neutral  bias  of  the  British  censor  in  control  of  the 
cables,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  an  erroneous 
picture  of  Germany's  treatment  of  Belgium  may  have 
gained  currency  in  many  quarters. 

If  Belgium  is  starving  today  to  a  greater  degree 
than  New  York  and  Boston  are  starving,  where  thou- 
sands of  people  are  out  of  work  and  hungry  every  day 
of  the  week, -the  fault  does  not  rest  with  Germany 
but  with  England  and  incidentally  America.  England 
has  avowedly  begun  a  campaign  of  starving  out  her 
enemies.  Contrary  to  all  laws  of  humanity,  and  in 
defiance  of  international  law,  as  interpreted  by  her 
own  statesmen,  England  prevents  shipment  of  food 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny^  197 

from  reaching  not  only  the  military  forces  but  also 
the  civil  population  of  her  enemy.  And  although 
America  has  recently  addressed  a  note  to  her,  she  has 
fallen  far  short  from  demanding  the  respect  which, 
in  the  interest  of  justice,  England  herself  once  de- 
clared neutral  Powers  should  enforce.  On  December 
15,  1870,  the  London  Times,  then  the  official  organ 
of  the  British  ministry,  declared: 

Germany  might  have  refused  to  recognize  the  immunity 
of  neutrals'  goods  in  French  ships  or  French  goods  in 
neutral  bottoms,  and  no  action  can  be  conceived  more 
injurious  to  neutrals,  especially  to  those  neutrals  who 
possess  regularly  commissioned  navies  that  can  command 
the  seas.  Why  has  Germany  refrained  from  this  step? 
Simply  because  she  is  pledged  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  to 
abstain  from  privateering,  and  she  has  a  wholesome 
apprehension  that  neutral  Powers  would  not  tolerate  a 
violation  of  the  engagement. 

Does  England's  present  conduct  imply  that  an  offi- 
cial man-of-war  can  do  what  a  privateer  should  not 
do?  Or  that  the  United  States  does  not  possess  a 
"  regularly  commissioned ''  navy,  "  that  can  command 
the  sea?'*  Or  that,  because  of  her  influential  sympa- 
thizers in  this  country,  she  need  not  have  "a  whole- 
some apprehension  that  neutral  Powers  would  not  tol- 
erate a  violation  of  the  engagement?''  Whatever  her 
reasons  may  be,  she  has  certainly  not  shown  any 
"  wholesome  apprehension  "  that  America  would  "  not 
tolerate  a  violation"  of  her  own  interpretation  of  the 
rights  of  neutrals,  and  of  the  far  greater  rights  of 
humanity,  which  demand  that  non-combatants  be  not 
deprived  of  their  food  supply.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
England,  with  the  consent  of  the  only  great  neutral 
Power  who  could  force  her  to  do  right,  has  for  months 


198  Germany's  Point  of  View 

cut  off  the  food  supply  from  Germany,  and  conse- 
quently also  from  Belgium.  Although  Belgium  has 
sacrificed  herself  to  save  France  and  England,  the  lat- 
ter are  perfectly  willing  to  see  the  Belgians  starve. 
In  their  desire  to  starve  the  civil  population  of  Ger- 
many they  do  not  shrink  from  sacrificing  the  very 
lives  of  their  plucky  ally,  Belgium. 

If  tomorrow  the  United  States  Government  should 
insist  that  food  supplies  for  the  civil  populations  of 
Germany,  Austria,  and  Belgium  should  pass  to  these 
countries,  there  would  be  no  further  need  for  Belgian 
relief  funds  and  committee.  Give  Germany  the 
opportunity  of  feeding  the  hungry  people  in  the  dis- 
tricts occupied  by  her  and  she  will  do  it  as  well  as  she 
has  always  fed  her  own  poor,  and  for  years  has  ban- 
ished destitution  such  as  is  known  in  London,  Liver- 
pool, New  York,  and  Boston  from  her  own  big  cities. 

Such  a  result,  however,  would  upset  the  anti-Ger- 
man propaganda  in  America  which  is  drawing  its 
sustenance  from  the  appeals  for  sympathy  which 
the  accounts  of  Belgian  distress  cannot  help  produc- 
ing. The  good  people  making  these  appeals  often 
play,  perhaps  without  knowing  it,  fast  and  loose  with 
the  truth,  and  doubtless  are  believed  by  many.  To 
take  only  two  instances :  In  his  appeal  for  Belgium, 
Mr.  E.  Summer  Mansfield,  Belgian  consul  in  Boston 
and  chairman  of  the  New  England  Belgian  Relief 
Committee,  makes  this  statement :  "  The  entire  popu- 
lation of  Belgium  is  destitute  and  without  govern- 
mental protection  of  any  kind."  That  the  first  part  of 
this  assertion  is  very  much  exaggerated  is  shown  not 
only  by  the  accounts  of  reputable  American  news- 
paper men  who  are  writing  on  the  spot,  but  also  by 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny  199 

the  accounts  in  the  impartial  Swiss,  Dutch  and  Scandi- 
navian press,  not  to  mention  the  official  German  re- 
ports. It  could  be  completely  dispelled  if  Mr.  Bryan 
chose  to  publish  the  reports  of  the  American  minister 
in  Belgium. 

The  second  part  of  Mr.  Mansfield's  claim  cannot, 
of  course,  be  believed  by  anybody,  for  nobody  yet  has 
accused  Germany  of  insufficiently  "governing"  any- 
where she  has  control.  If  people,  nevertheless,  should 
feel  inclined  to  give  credence  to  Mr.  Mansfield,  they 
should  turn  to  Mr.  Bennett's  account,  mentioned 
above,  and  read  of  the  security  felt  by  the  inhabitants 
whenever  German  officials  take  charge  of  affairs. 

The  same  paper  which  contained  Mr.  Mansfield's 
overstatements  brought  an  advertisement  of  the  Ker- 
messe  Flamande  with  this  sentence  in  large  type: 
"  The  Great  Hall  will  represent  the  picturesque  square 
of  the  ancient  city  of  Louvain,  destroyed  by  the 
Germans." 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  people  still  be- 
lieve that  Louvain  has  been  destroyed.  Months  ago 
the  German  Government  published  a  map  of  Louvain 
in  which  the  small  part  which  was  burned  was  shaded. 
Some  American  papers  have  reproduced  this  map; 
others  have  failed  to  do  so,  although  it  was  offered  to 
them.  In  addition,  the  German  Government  pub- 
lished a  large  picture  divided  into  two  parts.  On  the 
right  was  a  photograph  of  the  famous  Town  Hall 
of  Louvain  before  the  war  and  on  the  left  one  of  the 
Town  Hall  after  *'the  destruction  of  Louvain."  The 
latter  showed  many  debris  and  ruins  in  the  foreground, 
and  contained  a  legend  to  the  effect  that  the  ruins 
were  those  of  the  adjacent  houses  which  had  been 


200  Germany's  Point  of  View 

dynamited  by  a  German  officer  and  his  volunteer  sol- 
diers, at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  to  save  the  Town 
Hall  when  the  fire  had  spread.  In  America  generally 
only  the  half  of  the  picture  which  shows  the  ruins 
in  the  foreground  has  been  reproduced,  and  the  ex- 
planatory legend  has  been  —  erased!  A  casual  glance 
at  the  picture,  therefore,  conveys  the  impression  that 
the  Town  Hall  lies  in  ruins,  and  that  what  still  is 
standing  must  be  useless. 

And,  finally,  only  one  other  reference  to  a  news  item 
of  a  few  weeks  ago  which  was  adversely  commented 
upon  in  many  editorials,  and  increased  the  bitterness 
which  many  pro-Allies  felt  toward  Germany.  It  was 
prominently  reported  that  Germany  had  notified  the 
neutral  countries  that  she  would  no  longer  feel  obliged 
to  recognize  the  exequaturs  granted  by  the  Belgian 
governments  to  the  consuls  of  these  countries.  This 
was  interpreted  to  mean,  so  far  as  the  United  States 
are  concerned,  that  Germany  wished  to  be  rid  of  the 
American  officials  in  Belgium  who,  alone,  could  still 
be  trusted  to  see  that  some  degree  of  justice  was  se- 
cured for  the  oppressed  people  of  Belgium.  Later  it 
was  found,  and  inconspicuously  reported  by  some, 
but  not  by  all  the  papers,  that  Germany's  note  had  no 
special  reference  to  American  officials  in  Belgium; 
for  just  as  Mr.  Mansfield,  the  Belgian  consul  in  Bos- 
ton, is  not  a  Belgian,  but  an  American,  so  many  for- 
eign consuls  in  Belgium  are  citizens  of  that  country. 
Germany  did  not  want  to  have  her  commercial  busi- 
ness with  the  neutral  countries,  with  whom  she  wishes 
to  maintain  friendly  relations,  carried  on  by  consuls 
who  are  citizens  of  a  hostile  nation,  and  she  gave  a 
notice  which  enables  her  to  cancel  the  exequatur  — 


The  English  Web  of  Calumny  201 

any  country  has  the  right  to  do  this  and  often  does  it 
—  of  any  consul  whose  personal  animosity  tends  to 
create  ill  feeling  between  her  and  other  countries. 

Those  who  know  Germany  and  her  people  do  not 
need  any  arguments  to  make  them  feel  convinced  that 
the  picture  of  inhuman  and  cruel  Germans  oppressing 
Belgium  is  erroneous ;  but  there  are  a  great  many  peo- 
ple who  do  not  know  Germany,  or,  what  is  even  worse, 
only  half  know  her.  To  answer  their  several  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  their  anti-German  views  is  impos- 
sible; nobody,  moreover,  is  ever  convinced  against 
his  will.  If  these  people,  however,  will  take  the  pains 
of  following  out  the  various  lines  of  investigation 
suggested  in  this  and  the  chapters  which  treat  of  Ger- 
many and  Belgium,  they  will  at  least  see  what  has 
puzzled  many  of  them,  that  it  is  possible  to  arrive 
honestly  at  opinions  contrary  to  their  own. 

This  whole  discussion  began  with  a  letter  by  Mrs. 
Caroline  A.  Mason,  which  appears  in  Chapter  xiii,  it 
may,  therefore,  fittingly  be  concluded  with  a  reply 
received  by  Mrs.  Mason,  which  is  here  published  with 
the  consent  both  of  the  sender  and  the  receiver: 

Mrs.  Caroline  A.  Mason  : 

Dear  Madam — After  reading  your  letter  to  Dr.  von 
Mach,  as  reprinted  in  his  article  in  the  Boston  Transcript, 
I  cannot  refrain  from  writing  to  you  in  regard  to  what 
you  say  has  been  your  experience  in  traveling  in  Ger- 
many. It  surprised  me  very  much,  and  I  feel  sure  it  is 
entirely  exceptional.  I  myself  have  traveled  alone  from 
one  end  of  Germany  to  the  other,  staying  alone  in  hotels 
and  traveHng  by  night  as  well  as  by  day.  I  have  also 
taken  extended  walking  trips  in  company  with  one  other 
lady,  often  visiting  places  where  no  Americans  had  been 
before  us,  and  I  have  never  experienced  anything  but 
kindness   and  politeness.     It  is  true  that  many  German 


202  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tourists  of  the  bourgeoisie  class  have  bad  table  manners, 
are  noisy,  and  not  altogether  agreeable,  but  I  have  not 
found  that  they  are  inclined  to  molest  or  disturb  other 
travelers;  on  the  contrary,  I  could  fill  a  volume  v^ith 
instances  of  true  and  delicate  courtesy  and  helpfulness  on 
the  part  of  Germans  of  every  rank  and  station,  even  the 
lowest. 

A  statement  made  by  the  superintendent  of  the  Sailors* 
Haven  in  Boston,  an  institution  devoted  to  the  v^elfare  of 
all  seamen  of  whatever  nationality,  may  be  worth  quoting 
in  this  connection,  even  though  it  is  not  strictly  to  the 
point.  He  says  that  the  German  sailors  are  the  cleanest 
set  of  men  he  has  ever  known. 

I  was  in  Germany  last  summer,  during  the  first  month 
of  the  war,  and  I  am  one  of  many  Americans  who  can 
testify  to  the  extreme  consideration  with  which  we  were 
treated  under  what  no  one  can  deny  were  most  trying 
circumstances.  The  behavior  of  some  Americans  during 
that  time  was  a  painful  and  humiliating  contrast  and  a 
poor  return  for  the  courtesy  accorded  them. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.         Respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)     Amy  T.  Marston. 
loi  Pinckney  St.,  Boston,  Jan.  12,  IQ15. 

This  letter  quotes  Mr.  King,  the  superintendent  of 
the  Sailors'  Haven,  v^ho,  therefore,  was  asked  whether 
he  was  willing  to  have  his  statement  that  ''the  Ger- 
i)ian  sailors  are  the  cleanest  set  of  men  he  has  ever 
known,"  published.  He  replied,  "  Yes.  And  add  '  the 
politest.' " 


CHAPTER  XVI 

"la  GRANDE  PITIE  DES   EGLISES  DE  FRANCE'^ 

PROFESSOR  BARRETT  WENDELL  has  coupled 
his  name  with  that  of  Mr.  Whitney  Warren,  an 
American  architect  of  French  training,  who  has  sent 
out  an  appeal  after  "a  four  days'  trip  through  the 
wasted  towns  of  northern  France  and  western  Bel- 
gium, where  he  has  seen  the  devastation  wrought  by 
the  Germans." 

Both  gentlemen  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  France 
and  must  have  known  of  the  terrible  destruction  of 
beautiful  French  churches,  relics  of  the  best  period  of 
years  at  the  behest  of  an  anti-Christian  French  Govern- 
ment. Why  did  they  shut  their  eyes  to  such  vandalism, 
nor  raise  their  voices  in  protest,  or  support  M.  Maurice 
Barres,  academician  and  member  of  the  French  Parlia- 
ment, who  in  vain  has  tried  to  stem  the  tide?  Why 
did  they  not  exclaim  in  horror  when  in  his  official 
reply  to  M.  Barres'  protest,  M.  Beauquier  uttered 
these  blasphemous  words  in  the  French  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  amid  great  applause  and  laughter: 

Since  God  is  almighty,  He  can  himself  repair  His 
churches  and  see  to  it  that  they  are  not  destroyed.  If 
He  does  not  perform  this  miracle,  it  means  that  He  does 
not  wish  to  do  it.  And  if  He  does  not  wish  it,  we  must 
bow  to  His  will. 

Why  did  none  of  these  lovers  of  "la  Belle  Paris" 
tell  their  countrymen  in  America  what  was  going  on 

203' 


204  Germany's  Point  of  View 

throughout  France  since  the  passage  of  the  anti- 
rehgion  law  a  few  years  ago?  Does  it  mean  nothing 
to  them  when  old  baptismal  fountains  are  ripped  from 
their  sites  of  centuries  and  desecrated  by  being  placed 
as  troughs  in  municipal  piggeries !  And  that  in  times 
of  peace,  with  the  approval  and  even  at  the  command 
of  the  Government! 

Not  even  the  most  destructive  German  shells,  nor 
all  of  them  combined,  have  probably  done  as  much 
harm  as  the  iniquitous  French  law  which  made  the 
church  buildings  the  property  of  the  municipalities, 
which  have  the  right  to  close  them  to  the  worshippers 
whenever  the  buildings  are  out  of  repair.  The  munici- 
palities are  neither  obliged  to  repair  the  buildings  nor 
to  permit  the  congregations  to  repair  them.  When  no 
mass  has  been  said  in  a  church  for  some  time  the 
building  may  be  condemned  and  be  sold  at  auction. 
How  this  law  works  may  be  best  illustrated  by  reciting 
the  fate  that  befell  the  beautiful  church  of  Grisy- 
Suisnes.  It  is  here  translated  from  M.  Maurice  Barres' 
book.  La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France: 

One  fine  day  late  in  the  year  1909  the  Abbe  Auvray, 
curate  of  Grisy-Suisnes,  which  is  the  county  seat  of  Brie- 
Comte-Robert,  where  the  beautiful  roses  are,  received  a 
call  from  the  local  gendarme,  who  told  him  that  he  was 
instructed  to  report  within  forty-eight  hours  to  the  mayor, 
M.  Triboulet,  whether  the  curate  wished  to  pay  from  his 
tithes  for  the  necessary  repairs  in  his  church.  The  repairs 
were  necessary  and  considerable :  the  roof  was  falling  to 
pieces,  and  the  official  architect  has  estimated  the  cost  to 
be  48,000  francs.  M.  Auvray  had  raised  25,000  francs, 
which  he  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  municipality.  More 
he  could  not  do.  .  .  .  Six  months  passed,  and  then  the 
gendarme  returned  to  the  priest,  from  whom  he  obtained 
the  church  keys,  under  some  pretext.  He  brusquely  placed 
them  in  his  pocket,  and  notified  the  abbe  that  a  proclama- 


''La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France''    205 

tion  had  been  issued  and  the  church  building  been  declared 
to  be  no  longer  a  consecrated  building.  Within  a  week 
notice  appeared,  signed  by  MM.  Triboulet,  mayor,  and 
Paillard,  sheriff,  announcing  the  public  sale  of  the  "  effects 
and  the  articles  of  divine  worship." 

M.  Henry  Carbonelle  of  La  Liberie,  attended  the 
auction.    Listen  to  his  account: 

When  I  arrived  at  Grisy  I  met  on  the  road  from  the 
station  three  or  four  young  country  fellows  who  had 
secured  some  vestments  of  the  boys'  choir.  They  had  put 
on  the  cassocks  and  placed  on  their  heads  the  little 
red  calottes.  They  were  singing  obscene  songs  which  they 
accompanied  with  gestures  of  the  same  nature. 

In  the  church  some  fifty  people  were  assembled  about 
M.  Paillard,  who  acted  as  auctioneer.  He  was  conducting 
the  business  from  the  high  altar,  and  stood  on  an  impro- 
vised platform.  Near  him  his  clerk  was  taking  notes  of 
the  prices. 

".  .  .  fifteen  francs  for  this  confessional;  15  francs !  .  .  . 

"— 16,  17,  18. . .  r 

The  confessional  was  knocked  down  for  19  francs. 

A  workman  triumphantly  carried  away  a  chair  at  forty 
francs.  A  Virgin  in  stone,  head  and  arms  broken,  brought 
401  francs,  while  an  entirely  new  snowy-white  St.  Joseph 
barely  found  a  purchaser  at  one  franc  and  fifteen  centimes. 
The  Virgin,  to  be  sure,  dated  from  the  fifteenth  century. 
The  organ  sold  for  115  francs.  The  clock,  weight  500 
kilos,  was  knocked  down  for  800  francs. 

"  That's  too  much,"  a  dealer  whispered  by  my  side ; 
"  one  franc  a  kilo  would  have  been  enough." 

Night  came ;  the  candles  were  lighted.  Some  fellows 
who  smoked  made  use  of  this  opportunity  to  light  their 
pipes  or  cigarettes.  The  auction  proceeded:  "Five  francs 
fifty  centimes  for  the  Christ,  thirty-five  francs  for  the 
altar-rug,  twenty-eight  francs  for  the  beadle's  stick, 
twenty-five  francs  for  a  *  Descent  from  the  Cross.' "  But 
the  night  settled  in  darkness  over  the  church,  which  looked 
like  a  junk-shop.     It  was  necessary  to  stop. 

"  I  can't  come  tomorrow,"  the  sheriff  said,  discussing 
the  matter  with  the  mayor.  At  last  the  mayor  announced 
—  and  his  voice  thundered  through  the  church  — "  The 


2o6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

auction  will  be  resumed  next  Saturday,  on  Christmas  Day, 
at  one  o'clock." 

On  my  way  to  the  station  I  met  at  the  door  of  the 
saloon  the  merry  young  fellows  of  before,  still  dressed  in 
the  cassocks.  But  they  had  stopped  singing.  They  were 
drinking.  After  the  movable  effects  were  sold,  the  build- 
ing itself  was  knocked  down  piecemeal,  and  then  the 
demolisseurs  arrived.  A  correspondent  of  I' Echo  de  Paris, 
M.  Clair  Guyot,  saw  them  at  work. 

"  When  I  arrived,"  he  said,  ''  the  walls  had  been  torn 
down,  and  the  stones  been  neatly  piled  up  around  what 
used  to  be  the  nave.  The  men  were  tugging  with  enor- 
mous levers  at  the  foundations  of  a  buttress  which  they 
were  demolishing.  Under  their  frequently  renewed  efforts 
the  stones  began  to  crumble,  and  at  last  the  foreman 
shouted,  *  There  she  goes  ! '  " 

"  I  say,"  one  of  the  workmen  said,  "  that  was  hard  work. 
Say  what  you  will,  those  old  fellows  used  to  build  well." 

"I'll  bet,"  another  replied,  "that  they  did  not  think 
that  some  day  people  would  dare  to  demolish  their  church. 
If  they  could  see  what's  left  of  it  now!    .  .  ." 

During  this  conversation  some  children  had  come  along 
on  their  way  from  school,  also  the  gendarme. 

"  Well,  well,"  the  latter  said,  "  it  seems  to  me  you  have 
done  a  good  job  since  I  was  here  last.  Have  you  found 
anything  ?  " 

"  Yes,"  said  a  laborer,  "  a  bronze  coin.  It's  very  old, 
for  the  date  is  1610."  The  "  patron  "  was  so  pleased  with 
it  that  he  paid  us  the  price  of  a  couple  of  drinks. 

The  "  patron "  was  not,  as  you  might  think,  the  con- 
tractor.   This  "  patron  "  was  his  honor  the  mayor. 

"  That  doesn't  at  all  astonish  me,"  the  gendarme  repHed, 
"  for  he  came  here  while  you  were  at  lunch,  thinking  that 
there  might  be  something  here,  and  poked  about  with  his 
stick.  By  the  way,  have  you  looked  into  this  hole?  I'm 
sure  it  will  contain  something  wonderful." 

One  workman  at  once  began  to  ply  his  pickaxe.  The 
school  children  hid  behind  some  stones  for  fear  of  being 
driven  off.  Under  the  blows  of  the  pickaxe  the  pavement 
of  the  ancient  nave  gave  way,  the  earth  caved  in,  and 
some  human  bones  appeared.  Then,  dropping  their  tools, 
the  workmen  hauled  out  what  was  left  of  those  who  had 
once  received  sacred  burial  in  this  church.  The  first  thing 
to  be  lifted  out  was  a  skull  which  had  been  pierced  by  the 


"La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France''   207 

pickaxe,  and  which  was  thrown  far  away;  then  a  big 
breast  and  backbone,  and  at  last  some  huge  thigh  bones. 

"  This  was  a  mighty  chesty  chap,"  one  of  the  workmen 
said.  "Ah,  me !  the  old  fellow  did  not  dream  that  we 
should  haul  him  out  again  some  day.  Wait  a  moment. 
Let's  make  him  dance  a  can-can !  " 

Then,  holding  between  his  knees  the  upper  parts,  he 
joined  to  them  the  thigh  bones,  and,  when  his  work  was 
well  done,  he  moved  the  figure  to  and  fro  in  rhythmical 
cadence,  whistling  a  tune.    The  others  laughed. 

I  had  enough,  and  fled. 

Where  were  the  French-American  architects  then, 
and  where  the  high-churchmen,  who  today  are  trying 
to  make  capital  for  their  anti-German  propaganda  of 
the  unfortunate  damage  done  to  some  of  the  glorious 
monuments  of  art?  Rheims,  the  beautiful,  dearer 
probably  to  the  Germans,  who  love  not  only  art  but 
religion,  than  to  the  French,  was  wantonly  turned  into 
a  fortress.  The  French  knew  very  well  that  it  is 
impossible  to  fortify  a  place  and  to  shoot  at  an  enemy 
from  Rheims  without  drawing  also  his  fire  upon 
Rheims.  Mr.  Warren  Whitney's  appeal  would  have 
rung  truer,  if  years  ago  he  had  demanded  that  the 
fortress  of  Rheims  be  razed.  And  truer  still,  if  he 
had  joined  M.  Maurice  Barres  in  his  endeavor  to  save 
the  churches  of  France,  for  Grisy-Suisnes  is  not  the 
only  place  which  stands  today  deprived  of  its  old 
shrine.  Let  people  read  M.  Barres'  book,  let  them 
visualize  the  destruction  wrought,  and  above  all  the 
blasphemous  spirit  in  which  it  has  been  done. 

When  the  truth  is  known  America  will  no  longer 
waste  her  pity  on  a  country  which  in  a  sacrilegious 
spirit  has  made  war  for  years  not  only  against  the 
Christian  religion,  but  against  all  religion.  America 
does  not  care  how  a  man  worships,  but  she  insists  that 


2o8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  Deity  be  not  profaned.  To  raze  a  beautiful  old 
Gothic  church  out  of  spite  to  the  sect  which  still 
wishes  to  worship  there,  and  even  more  perhaps  out  of 
the  desire  to  enrich  the  public  coffers  with  the  paltry 
sum  the  church  and  its  sacred  effects  may  bring  at 
auction,  this  is  so  abhorrent  to  the  average  American 
that  Messrs.  Wendell  and  Whitney  have  wisely 
refrained  from  mentioning  it. 

"Devastation  wrought  by  the  Germans!"  Indeed! 
Why  is  the  Cathedral  of  Rheims  even  today  undam- 
aged except  its  roof?  Because  it  was  Germans,  and 
not  Frenchmen,  who  were  fired  upon  from  the  fortress, 
because  with  a  self-control  unparalleled  in  the  annals 
of  warfare,  the  Germans  forbore  to  do  what  they  had 
a  perfect  right  to  do  when  the  French  had  made  an 
observation  point  of  the  towers  of  the  cathedral.  In 
spite  of  all  denials  by  the  press,  it  is  an  established 
fact  that  the  French  so  used  the  cathedral. 

There  is  many  a  monument  in  France  and  Belgium 
which  owes  its  preservation  to  German  care,  devotion, 
and  self-sacrifice,  and  to  try  to  make  capital  of  the 
destruction  of  other  places  is  playing  fast  and  loose 
with  facts.  There  is  not  another  nation  which,  under 
similar  conditions,  would  have  destroyed  so  little  as 
the  Germans.  Would  the  French,  whose  artillery  is 
shooting  today  on  their  own  treasures,  and  who  even 
in  years  of  peace  destroyed  their  own  churches,  have 
spared  Rheims  Cathedral?  Or  the  English,  whose 
records  in  Africa,  Egypt,  and  India  are  known,  who 
are  today  bombarding  the  coast  towns  of  Belgium  and 
the  villages  behind  the  German  trenches,  and  who  in 
1814  set  fire  to  the  White  House  and  the  Capitol,  not 
because  it  was  a  military  necessity,  but  wantonly  ?    Or 


'^La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France^'   209 

would  even  the  Americans  have  been  able  to  save 
Rheims  when  they  failed,  in  their  expedition  to  Vera 
Cruz,  to  save  from  destruction  the  valuable  library 
of  the  Naval  Academy  ?  Or  the  Russians,  or  any  other 
nation  save  perhaps  the  Japanese? 

War  is  a  terrible  thing,  and  war  carried  on  in  the 
enemy's  country  will  always  let  loose  a  horde  of  com- 
plaints against  the  victor.  War  cannot  be  carried  on 
with  kid  gloves,  and  Germany  is  not,  nor  can  she  be, 
in  the  conquered  territory,  a  gentle  master.  But  she 
is  just  and  humane,  all  hostile  reports  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  Nor  can  this  be  different,  for  the 
German  army  is  a  citizen  army  where  no  criminals  or 
savages  are  admitted.  This  point  cannot  be  over- 
emphasized, for  it  distinguishes  the  German  army  from 
all  others.  As  early  as  October  27,  1914,  the  Niagara 
Falls,  (N.  Y.)  Journal  contained  the  following  notice 
from  Niagara  Falls,  Ontario: 

The  military  authorities  have  asked  the  police  here  to 
send  all  British  subjects  who  appear  in  court  to  the 
Victoria  Avenue  armory  if  they  desire  to  enlist. 

While  no  man  with  a  criminal  record  is  permitted 
to  serve  with  the  German  army,  the  English  have 
done  much  of  their  recruiting  among  culprits  whose 
sentences  were  remitted  if  they  were  willing  to  enlist, 
whether  or  no  they  had  previous  records.  This  may 
account  for  the  fact  that  a  phrase  which  constantly 
appeared  in  the  first  English  reports  seems  latterly 
to  have  disappeared:  '*The  morale  of  our  men  is 
excellent." 

In  spite  of  this  there  are  not  a  few  high-minded 
Americans  who,  knowing  only  the  finest  type  of  Eng- 
lishmen, will  not  be  shaken  in  their  belief  that  the 


2IO  Germany's  Point  of  View 

English  warfare  is  superior,  and  actually  nobler/  than 
that  of  other  people.  Possibly  the  following  letter 
which  appeared  in  the  London  Daily  News  of  August 
i6,  1906,  may  open  their  eyes.  It  was  written  by  a 
British  officer  to  his  mother,  recording  the  progress 
of  events  in  the  campaign  against  the  Zulu  chief, 
Bambaata : 

About  nine  o'clock  a.  m.,  Mudhlogozulu,  the  paramount 
chief,  appeared,  carrying  a  white  flag.  Some  two  or  three 
hundred  accompanied  him.  He  arrived  a  few  yards  in 
front  of  a  sergeant  and  explained  that  he  wanted  to  give 
in.  The  reply,  of  course,  was  a  bullet  that  must  have  sent 
his  brains  some  fifty  yards  off.  His  followers,  who  were 
now  far  too  terrorized  to  use  their  weapons,  stood  back  in 
a  mass  and  shrieked  for  mercy.  Mercy  came  quicker  than 
expected  —  in  the  shape  of  a  Maxim.  What  a  sight !  The 
whole  bundle  dropped  Hfeless  in  less  than  a  minute ! 
Several  women  were  among  the,  slain,  as  well  as  a  lot  of 
young  boys.  .  .  .  The  general  way  of  dispatching  the 
prisoners  is  to  take  them  out  of  camp  and  tell  them  to  run 
away  into  bush.  They  only  get  about  twenty  yards  or  so 
when  a  bullet  reaches  them,  and,  of  course,  it  is,  "  Good- 
bye, John,"  for  them.  A  faithful  Kaffir  was  looking  about 
the  fallen  when  he  found  Bambaata  and  at  once  took  steps 
to  have  his  head  brought  into  camp  for  identification. 
Well,  the  first  thing  the  doctor  ordered  was  to  have  the 
matter  kept  secret,  and  also  to  have  it  stuffed  at  once. 
We  carried  the  head  with  us  for  about  a  week,  when  it  was 
dissected,  and  the  skull  will  probably  be  made  into  a  nice 
tobacco  jar  for  someone.  Curiously  enough,  I  was  never 
in  better  health,  and  altogether  the  food  is  splendid.  In 
fact,  I  think  it  is  the  finest  picnic  I  have  ever  been  at. 

Those  who  think  this  letter  too  terrible  to  be  true 
should  look  for  confirmation  of  this  English  spirit 
of  warfare  to  Mr.  Churchill's  account  of  Lord  Kitch- 
ener's River  War,  and  remember  that  the  Daily  News 
is  no  sensational  paper,  but  the  organ  of  the  Society 
of  Friends. 


''La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France''    211 

The  most  horrible  tale,  however,  that  has  come  from 
the  English  army  was  related  in  Collie/s  Weekly, 
January  2,  1915,  page  6: 

In  a  temporary  hospital  near  the  front,  some  fifty 
German  and  Indian  wounded  were  put  in  the  same  ward. 
In  the  night  the  Indians  got  up  and  cut  the  Germans' 
throats. 

There  was  no  editorial  comment,  no  rebuke  to  the 
English  for  introducing  such  savages  into  Europe,  no 
reminder  that  the  recurrence  of  such  practices  would 
irretrievably  alienate  from  England  the  sympathies  of 
all  Americans.  Forgotten,^  alas !  in  many  quarters,  is 
the  American  Declaration  of  Independence,  while  its 
memory  is  kept  alive  in  the  hearts  of  America's  more 
recent  citizens.  How  many  Americans  who  today 
blame  the  Germans  for  their  bitterness  against  oppo- 
nents who  are  fighting  them  with  savage  Indians, 
Zouaves,  and  Turkos,  know  that  their  forefathers  men- 
tioned in  their  Declaration  of  Independence  as  one  of 
the  reasons  why  henceforth  there  could  be  no  connec- 
tion between  them  and  England,  that : 

He  [the  king  of  England]  had  endeavored  to  bring  on 
the  inhabitants  of  our  frontiers  the  merciless  Indian 
savages,  whose  known  rule  of  warfare  is  in  undistin- 
guished destruction  of  all  ages,  sexes,  and  conditions. 

Even  if  this  declaration  has  ceased  to  carry  its 
message  of  proud  independence  to  some  Americans 
whose  f amiHes  have  been  long  settled  here,  the  Ameri- 
cans of  German  descent  feel  its  ennobling  force,  and 
are  proud  that  their  hearts  are  vibrating  to  the  emo- 
tions of  the  founders  of  American  independence.  God 
bless  those  noble  men  of  long  ago ! 

And  God  bless  William  11  of  Hohenzollern,  German 


212  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Emperor!  Some  have  called  him  medieval  and  out  of 
date,  many  have  maligned  him,  but  nobody,  familiar 
with  his  character  and  his  work,  has  failed  to  recognize 
that  in  an  age  of  materialism  William  ii  has  been  the 
immovable  rock  of  religious  faith.  Compare  the  de- 
struction of  churches  and  the  persecution  especially  of 
the  Catholic  faith  in  France  with  the  toleration  of  all 
creeds  and  the  reverence  offered  to  the  Deity  in  Ger- 
many, and  you  will  see  that  also  in  this  respect  Ger- 
many is  nearer  to  America  than  any  other  country. 
The  Emperor's  Christianity  is  very  practical,  and  that 
is  the  reason  why  it  has  been  so  distasteful  to  the 
opponents  of  all  religion,  and  why  it  has  won  for  him 
the  admiration  of  his  countrymen.  His  speeches  ring 
true.  Sixteen  years  ago  almost  to  the  day  he  ad- 
dressed the  men  of  Brandenburg,  which  is  the  oldest 
province  of  Prussia,  in  these  words  [the  translation 
is  quoted  from  What  Germany  Wants,  pages  31 
to  34]  : 

My  Dear  Mr.  President  and  Men  of  Brandenburg: 

The  address  which  we  have  just  heard  gave  a  most 
patriotic  survey,  poetically  embellished,  of  the  deeds  of 
the  Hohenzollerns  and  the  history  of  our  people.  I  believe 
I  am  expressing  your  own  feelings  when  I  say  that  two 
factors  made  it  possible  for  my  ancestors  to  solve  their 
problems  as  they  did.  One,  and  the  chief  factor,  was 
that  they  of  all  the  princes,  at  a  time  when  such  thoughts 
and  feelings  were  not  yet  universal,  realized  their  personal 
responsibility  toward  God,  and  acted  accordingly,  and 
the  other,  that  they  had  the  support  of  the  people  of 
Brandenburg. 

Put  yourselves  back  for  a  moment  to  the  time  when 
Lord  Frederick  i  was  appointed  elector  here,  and  ex- 
changed his  splendid  home  in  Franconia  for  the  March 
of  Brandenburg.  According  to  the  historians,  the  condi- 
tions here  at  that  time  were  such  that  we  today  can  barely 


''La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France''   213 

conceive  of  them.  We  can  therefore  understand  Lord 
Frederick's  action  only  if  we  assume  that  he  feh  it  his 
duty  to  accept  the  country  which  the  emperor's  favor  had 
bestowed  on  him.  He  was  eager  to  introduce  in  Branden- 
burg system  and  order,  not  only  because  he  wished  to 
please  the  emperor,  and  himself,  but  because  he  believed 
Heaven  had  assigned  to  him  this  task.  Similar  motives 
we  can  trace  with  all  my  ancestors.  Their  big  wars  with 
other  countries,  and  their  institutions  and  laws  at  home, 
were  ever  inspired  by  the  one  feeling  of  responsibility  to 
the  people  who  had  been  given  into  their  keeping,  and  the 
country  which  had  been  intrusted  to  them. 

The  president  of  the  province  has  kindly  referred  to  our 
trip  to  Palestine  and  what  I  did  there.  I  am  free  to  say 
that  I  have  had  many  and  varied  experiences  of  an  elevat- 
ing nature  in  that  country,  partly  religious,  partly  histor- 
ical, and  partly,  also,  connected  with  modern  life.  My  most 
inspiring  experience,  however,  next  to  the  service  in  our 
own  church,  was  to  stand  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  and  see 
the  spot  at  its  base  where  the  greatest  struggle  of  the 
world  was  fought  —  by  the  One  Man  —  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  mankind.  This  realization  induced  me  to  renew 
on  that  day  my  oath  of  allegiance,  as  it  were,  to  God  on 
high.  I  swore  to  do  my  very  best  to  knit  my  people  to- 
gether, and  to  destroy  whatever  could  disintegrate  them. 

During  my  stay  in  that  foreign  country,  where  we 
Germans  miss  the  woods  and  the  beautiful  sheets  of  water 
which  we  love,  I  often  thought  of  the  lakes  of  Branden- 
burg and  their  clear,  sombre  depths,  and  of  our  forests 
of  oaks  and  pines,  and  then  I  said  to  myself  that,  after  all, 
we  are  far  happier  here  than  in  foreign  lands,  although 
the  other  people  of  Europe  often  pity  us. 

Speaking  of  trees,  and  our  care  and  love  of  them,  I  am 
reminded  of  an  incident  which  is  of  interest  to  us  who 
have  begun  to  assist  the  growth  of  the  German  empire. 
It  happened  after  the  great  and  inspiring  events  of  1870-71. 
The  troops  had  returned,  the  exultation  had  abated,  people 
had  resumed  their  former  labors,  and  the  work  of  solidify- 
ing and  developing  the  new  Fatherland  was  beginning. 
The  three  paladins  of  the  grand  old  Emperor,  the  great 
General,  the  mighty  Chancellor,  and  the  faithful  Minister 
of  War,  had  sat  down  to  a  meal,  for  the  first  time  alone. 
When  they  had  drunk  their  first  glass  to  the  sovereign 
and  the  empire,  the  Chancellor  turned  to  his  companions 


214  Germany's  Point  of  View 

and  said :  "  Now  we  have  obtained  everything  for  the 
reaHzation  of  which  we  have  been  fighting,  struggling,  and 
suffering.  We  have  reached  the  highest  goal  of  which  we 
ever  dared  to  dream.  After  our  experiences,  what  more 
can  there  be  to  interest  and  to  inspire  us  ?  "  There  was  a 
brief  pause,  and  then  the  old  director  of  battles  said, 
"  To  see  the  tree  grow !  "     And  the  room  was  very  still. 

Yes,  gentlemen,  the  tree  which  we  must  watch  and  care 
for  is  the  German  Empire  Oak.  It  is  bound  to  grow, 
because  it  has  the  protection  of  the  men  of  Brandenburg. 
Here  are  its  roots.  It  has  weathered  many  a  storm,  and 
has  often  almost  died,  but  its  roots  and  shoots,  firmly 
planted  in  Brandenburg  soil,  will  keep,  God  grant,  in  all 
eternity ! 

The  wish  to  bring  about  peace  among  all  the  people  is 
magnificent,  but  one  big  mistake  is  generally  made  in  all 
such  calculations.  As  long  as  unregenerated  sin  rules 
among  men  there  will  be  war  and  hatred,  envy  and  dis- 
cord, and  one  man  will  try  to  get  the  better  of  another. 
The  law  of  men  is  also  the  law  of  nations.  Let  us  Ger- 
mans, therefore,  hold  together  like  a  solid  rock!  And 
may  every  wave  which  threatens  peace,  far  away  or  at 
home  in  Europe,  dash  in  vain  against  this  immovable 
rock  —  the  German  people! 

The  Emperor's  hopes  have  not  come  true.  The 
most  terrible  tempest  is  raging,  and  Germany  has 
been  drawn  into  the  vortex  with  irresistible  force. 
Wars  are  only  the  continuations  of  previous  policies, 
and  so  long  as  these  are  hidden  who  dares  to  say 
that  Germany  is  altogether  right  and  that  her  oppo- 
nents are  wrong?  But  of  this,  all  who  know  Germany 
are  convinced  that  she  is  not  wrong  in  the  sense  in 
which  she  has  been  misrepresented.  And,  so  far  as 
the  Emperor  is  concerned,  he  will  yet  be  known,  not 
as  the  War  Lord,  which  is  a  mistranslation  of  Kriegs- 
herVj  but  as  the  prince  who  loved  peace,  and  the  man 
who  through  a  long  and  successful  reign  never  lost  his 
faith  in  God,  and  who  lived  a  life  of  such  personal 


*^La  Grande  Pitie  des  Eglises  de  France''   215 

purity  that  no  one  dared  to  point  the  finger  of  scandal 
at  him.  Other  leaders  may  have  been  more  brilliant, 
or  have  increased  their  country  by  successful  wars, 
but  never  yet  has  a  man  assisted  his  people,  by  the  arts 
of  peace,  to  as  phenomenal  a  growth  of  prosperity  as 
he.  People  have  called  him  headstrong  and  fond  of 
managing  everything  himself.  But  in  the  supreme 
moment,  during  ten  months  of  the  war,  strong  leader 
that  he  is,  he  has  completely  effaced  himself.  This 
is  the  reason  why  today  everybody  in  Germany,  young 
and  old,  rich  and  poor,  prince  and  peasant,  joins  in  the 
one  prayer :  "  God  bless  William  11 ! " 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  FRENCH  YELLOW  BOOK 

THE  FRENCH  Yellow  Book  is  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  official  publications  ever  issued. 
Avowedly  circulated  to  prove  the  justice  of  the 
French  case,  it  makes  the  most  damaging  admissions 
concerning  the  Allies,  and,  when  one  separates  truth 
from  fiction-,  reads  like  the  eloquent  pleading  of  a 
pro-German.  If  it  correctly  portrays  the  state  of 
mind  of  the  French  officials  in  the  anxious  days  pre- 
ceding the  war,  it  suggests  that  among  the  Allies  only 
Sazonof  kept  his  head,  because  he  was  the  only  one 
who  knew  from  the  first  just  what  he  wanted. 

The  book  is  delightful  reading,  but  since  it  is  full 
of  contradictions  a  detailed  study  of  its  many 
despatches  is  needed  to  obtain  a  clear  picture  of  the 
important  ante-bellum  events.  Since  not  everybody 
is  able  to  give  the  book  such  a  study,  the  results  of  a 
thorough  analysis  and  of  a  comparison  of  the  French 
despatches  with  those  published  by  Sir  Edward  Grey 
are  here  presented  under  eight  separate  heads.  Each 
part  is  complete  in  itself,  although  it  has  not  been 
deemed  necessary  to  repeat  in  full  in  the  later  parts 
the  quotations  and  references  given  in  the  earlier  parts. 
The  first  three  parts  are  introductory,  and  show 
that  the  French  publication  is  incomplete,  often 
inaccurate,  and  at  times  intentionally  misleading. 
The   remaining  five  parts   discuss   in   turn  the  atti- 

2i6 


The  French  Yellow  Book  217 

tudes  of  Russia,  France,  Austria,  Germany,  and 
England. 

The  Yellow  Book,  like  all  other  Parliamentary  pa- 
pers, is  incomplete.  Many  despatches  have  been 
omitted.  In  Numbers  16  and  17  M.  Martin  announces 
to  his  ambassadors  everywhere  that  M.  Jules  Cambon 
had  sent  him  an  important  message  from  BerHn.  The 
message  itself,  however,  is  not  printed.  One  wonders 
what  it  may  have  contained  in  addition  to  the  news 
that  the  Bourse  is  extremely  weak  (No.  16)  and  that 
in  fact  there  had  been  a  slump  (No.  17). 

In  Numbers  17,  26,  2^,  references  are  made  to 
despatches  from  Rome,  while  the  despatches  them- 
selves are  missing.  It  will  be  remembered  that  most 
of  the  despatches  omitted  from  the  British  Blue  Book 
also  hailed  from  Rome  (see  New  York  Times,  No- 
vember I,  1914).  Number  31  is  a  brief  despatch 
from  St.  Petersburg  on  the  subject  covered  by  the 
long  despatch  Number  6  of  the  British  Blue  Book. 
Did  the  French  Government  omit  most  of  the  despatch 
because  it  was  somewhat  inconvenient  to  be  reminded 
of  several  things?  (i),  that  the  French  ambassador 
had  promised  as  early  as  July  24  to  go  with  Russia 
through  thick  and  thin.  This  might  have  taken  the 
luster  off  the  promises  to  work  for  peace,  which  were 
to  be  strewn  liberally  through  the  book.  (2),  that 
Great  Britain,  the  noble  defender  of  weak  and  down- 
trodden Servia,  said  on  July  24  that  ''her  interests 
in  Servia  were  nil."  (3),  that  the  Russian  prime 
minister,  M.  Sazonof,  said,  on  July  24,  that  Russian 
mobilization  must  "be  carried  out."  One  wonders 
when  it  really  began.  The  Czar  telegraphed  the  Ger- 
man Emperor  on  July  30  that  it  began  on  July  25. 


2i8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

But  did  he  know?  (4),  that  Sazonof  himself  wrote 
the  reply  which  Servia  sent  to  the  Austrian  demand. 
This  deduction  seems  clear  from  the  words  quoted 
below.  It  will  be  remembered  (British  Blue  Book  No. 
6)  that  Sazonof  and  the  British  and  the  French  am- 
bassadors had  gathered  for  a  friendly  chat.  Said 
the  British  ambassador,  "  It  seems  to  me  desirable 
that  we  should  know  how  Servia  will  answer."  (His 
report  puts  it  "  is  prepared  to  go  to  meet  the  demands 
formulated  by  Austria  in  her  note.")  Sazonof  replied, 
"I  must  first  consult  my  colleagues."  (5),  that  at 
this  same  conference  it  was  decided  that  it  would 
be  best  if  Sir  Edward  Grey  would  promise  his  sup- 
port at  once,  but  that  France  and  Russia  "  were  deter- 
mined to  make  a  strong  stand,"  even  if  Grey  "  declined 
to  join  them."  Since  they  were  assured  of  Grey's  dip- 
lomatic support,  "  strong  stand  "  strikes  the  reader  as 
a  pleasant  euphemism. 

The  same  diffidence  induced  the  French  Govern- 
ment to  *' doctor"  Sazonof 's  threat  (British  Blue 
Book  No.  17),  which  said  that 

Russia  could  not  allow  Austria  to  crush  Servia  and  become 
the  predominant  Power  in  the  Balkans,  and  if  she  feels 
secure  of  the  support  of  France  she  will  face  all  the  risks 
of  war, 

or,  rather  to  omit  the  despatch  of  the  French  ambas- 
sador in  St.  Petersburg  altogether,  and  to  substitute 
one  from  Rome  (No.  52),  in  which  Sazonof  told  the 
first  part  of  his  threat,  but  not  the  threat  of  war,  to  the 
Italian  ambassador,  who  telegraphed  it  to  his  foreign 
secretary  in  Rome,  who  told  the  French  ambassador, 
who  reported  home.     It  will  be  seen  later  that  while 


The  French  Yellow  Book  219 

threats  of  war  were  freely  spoken  of  between  France, 
England,  and  Russia,  they  were  always  omitted  in 
discussing  the  case  with  Germany,  Austria,  and 
Italy. 

In  Number  50  Martin  refers  to  a  despatch  by  Jules 
Cambon,  the  French  ambassador  in  Berlin,  who 
had  said  that  Germany  would  reply  to  the  first  Rus- 
sian steps  by  attacking  France.  The  despatch  itself, 
and  all  the  other  interesting  information  it  may  have 
contained,  have  been  omitted.  Similar  omissions  may 
be  detected  throughout  the  Yellow  Book.  A  very 
notable  one  is  the  autograph  letter  from  the  President 
to  the  king  referred  to  in  Number  no  as  intended  to 
influence  England  in  favor  of  France.  The  text  of  the 
letter,  which  must  have  been  written  on  July  30,  19 14, 
is  not  given  in  the  Yellow  Book,  and  when  it  was  pub- 
lished by  England  on  February  20,  1915,  it  was 
wrongly  dated,  July  31,  19 14. 

Unlike  most  other  official  documents,  this  Yellow 
Book  is  inaccurate  on  its  own  internal  evidence.  Many 
of  the  despatches  seem  to  have  been  written  up  from 
notes,  the  same  notes  serving  for  several  despatches. 
Thus,  in  Number  25,  M.  Berthelot  in  Paris  uses  the 
same  words,  which,  in  Number  29,  the  Russian  charge 
d'affaires  is  quoted  as  having  spoken  to  Jules  Cambon 
in  Berlin.  Part  of  Number  74  has  been  prepared  from 
the  same  notes  as  Number  81.  In  Number  74,  which 
dates  from  Berlin,  July  27,  Jules  Cambon  wrote : 


As  Herr  von  Jagow  did  not  answer  me  clearly,  I  asked 
him  if  he  wanted  war.  He  protested  energetically.  .  .  . 
"  Moreover,"  he  added,  "  direct  conversations  between 
Vienna  and  St.  Petersburg  are  begun  and  are  proceeding. 
I  expect  much  good  of  them,  and  I  have  hope." 


220  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Number  8i,  of  July  28,  is  another  despatch  from  Jules 
Cambon,  in  Berlin,  and  contains  these  words : 

I  asked  him  if  he  wanted  war;  he  protested,  and  added 
that  direct  conversations  between  Vienna  and  St.  Peters- 
burg were  begun,  and  that  from  now  on  he  expected  a 
favorable  result. 

Other  inaccuracies  have  to  do  with  the  placing  of 
the  despatches  out  of  their  order.  Number  33  states 
that  the  Austrian  ultimatum  is  not  known  and  should, 
therefore,  precede  Numbers  30,  31,  32  in  which  the 
ultimatum  is  known.  In  like  manner  Number  68, 
which  speaks  of  a  proposal  of  Sir  Edward  Grey,  as  of 
one  that  is  to  be  made  in  the  future,  antedates  Number 
61,  where  Sir  Edward's  proposal  is  discussed.  The 
same  is  true  of  Number  112,  which  was  written  be- 
fore Number  113. 

These  and  similar  mistakes  may  be  due  to  the  hasty 
makeup  of  the  Yellow  Book,  although  the  French  Gov- 
ernment took  more  time  for  it  than  any  other  Govern- 
ment. No  such  excuse  is  possible  for  the  following 
errors.  In  Number  30,  Berlin,  July  24,  the  beginning 
and  the  end  contradict  each  other: 

I  asked  the  Secretary  of  State  if  it  was  true,  as  was 
stated  in  the  newspapers,  that  Austria  had  sent  a  note  to 
the  Powers  dealing  with  her  differences  with  Servia;  if 
he  had  received  it.  Herr  von  Jagow  replied  affirmatively, 
adding  that  the  note  was  energetic,  and  that  he  approved 
it,  the  Servian  Government  having  long  since  exhausted 
Austrian  patience. 

The  last  paragraph  of  the  same  note  reads : 

It  is  none  the  less  striking  to  note  the  care  with  which 
Herr  von  Jagow  and  all  the  officials  under  him  are  at 
pains  to  say  to  everybody  that  they  know  nothing  of  the 
nature  of  the  note  handed  by  Austria  to  Servia. 


The  French  Yellow  Book  221 

Even  more  striking  is  the  fact  that  the  Austrian  note 
was  delivered  in  Belgrade  at  6  p.  m.^  the  previous 
day  (Number  23),  and  that  it  was  presented  in  Paris 
at  10  A.  M.  It  is  given  in  full  in  Number  24,  and  yet 
in  Number  30  Jules  Cambon  has  to  explain  his  query 
by  a  reference  to  newspaper  accounts. 

Equally  marvelous  is  Jules  Cambon's  question  in 
Number  92,  July  29 : 

I  asked  Herr  von  Jagow  if  at  last  he  had  the  reply  of 
Servia  to  Austria, 

because  two  days  earlier,  in  Number  74,  July  27,  he 
reported  to  Paris  as  follows: 

I  asked  him  if  he  had  made  himself  acquainted  with  the 
Servian  reply  to  Austria,  which  had  been  handed  to  him 
that  morning  by  the  Servian  charge  d'affaires. 

Number  28,  July  24,  gives  evidence  of  a  remarkable 
memory  on  the  part  of  Martin.  On  this  day  the  Ger- 
man ambassador,  von  Schoen,  presented  a  note  to  the 
French  Foreign  Office 

of  which  he  did  not  wish  to  leave  a  copy,  but  which,  at 
my  request,  he  read  twice. 

Then  Martin  proceeds  to  quote  almost  verbatim  the 
note  presented  by  von  Schoen.  We  can  check  the 
accuracy  of  his  memory  by  the  published  account 
of  this  note  in  the  German  White  Paper  and  the  Brit- 
ish Blue  Book,  for  the  identical  note  was  handed  to, 
and  left  with,  Sir  Edward  Grey  on  the  same  day.  It 
covers  an  entire  page  in  the  Blue  Book,  Number  9,  and, 
since  London  and  Paris  were  in  almost  hourly  com- 
munication with  each  other  in  those  days,  it  is  more 
likely  that  Martin  knew  the  note  from  London  than 


222  Germany's  Point  of  View 

that  he  remembered  it.  It  is,  however,  strange  that 
Paul  Cambon's  despatch  from  London  containing  the 
note  is  absent,  and  that  Martin's  later  orders  to  his 
ambassadors  are  in  error  as  regards  the  presentation 
of  this  note  in  London.  In  Number  36,  July  25, 
Martin  makes  the  definite  statement  that  the  German 
ambassador  in  London  had  not  yet  presented  the  note ; 
and  in  Number  50,  July  26,  that  he  had  presented  it 
on  July  25,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Sir  Edward 
Grey  prints  it  as  received  on  July  24. 

In  this  same  Number  50,  July  26,  Jules  Cambon  is 
quoted  as  reporting  from  Berlin  that  Germany  would 
attack  France  on  the  first  Russian  steps,  but  his  own 
despatch  is  not  given. 

The  Yellow  Book  abounds  Jn  various  statements, 
which  are  flatly  contradicted  by  known  facts.  The 
most  glaring  instance  of  this  is  Number  127,  August 
I,  addressed  by  the  French  premier,  M.  Viviani,  to 
his  ambassador  in  London,  Paul  Cambon,  and  meant 
to  convince  Sir  Edward  Grey,  or  rather  to  give  Sir 
Edward  Grey  a  means  of  convincing 

English  opinion  .  .  .  from  what  side  the  aggression  comes ; 
and  it  will  grasp  the  very  strong  reasons  we  have  given  to 
Sir  Edward  Grey  in  our  demand  for  the  armed  interven- 
tion of  England  in  the  interest  of  the  future  European 
equilibrium. 

The  various  points  of  this  note  may  be  summarized  as 
follows : 

I.  Germany  and  Austria  are  suddenly  trying  to 
distort  the  truth  and  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  the 
war  on  Russia.  The  implication  is  that  they  should 
have  said  so  before,  if  they  had  really  thought  so.    As 


The  French  Yellow  Book  223 

a  matter  of  fact  they  did  say  so.  In  Number  92, 
July  29,  Jules  Cambon  reports  from  Berlin : 

The  Imperial  Chancellor  asked  the  British  ambassador 
to  come  and  see  him  —  he  assured  my  colleague  of  his 
sincere  desire  for  peace  and  of  the  efforts  he  was  making 
in  Vienna,  but  he  added  Russia  alone  had  it  in  her  power 
to  maintain  peace  or  to  let  loose  war. 

The  British  ambassador  was  Sir  E.  Goschen ;  his  inter- 
view of  July  29  is  given  in  the  British  Blue  Book, 
Number  75,  where  the  words  that 

Russia  alone  had  it  in  her  power  to  maintain  peace  or  let 
loose  war 

are  omitted.  If  Jules  Cambon  had  reference  to  an 
interview  of  July  28,  but  dated  it  wrongly  in  his  de- 
spatch, such  an  interview  is  given  in  the  British  Blue 
Book,  Number  71.  The  expression  concerning  the 
responsibility  of  Russia,  however,  is  toned  down  to 
read: 

If  war  were  to  result,  Russia  would  be  entirely  responsible. 
France  and  England  had  constantly  counseled  moderation 
in  St.  Petersburg. 

2.  This  is  not  the  case  as  appears  from  Numbers  62 
and  80.  Germany  and  Austria  were  constantly  asking 
France  and  England  to  do  this,  but  both  refused.  In 
Number  62,  July  27,  Germany's  desire  that  the 
French  Government  exert  all  its  influence  in  a  sooth- 
ing manner  on  the  St.  Petersburg  cabinet  is  refused. 
Because,  as  Martin  reports  to  Viviani,  such  a  French 
step  in  St.  Petersburg  "would  have  been  difficult  to 
explain."  On  the  next  day,  July  28,  Sir  Edward  Grey 
refused  a  similar  request  (No.  80),  saying 

that  he  would  be  much  embarrassed  in  making  pacific 
recommendations  in  St.  Petersburg. 


224  Germany  s  Point  of  View 

3.  Sazonof  had  "pressed  Servia  to  accept  the 
clauses  of  the  ultimatum  compatible  with  her  sover- 
eignty." This  can  only  be  meant  as  a  joke;  for,  from 
the  British  Blue  Book,  Number  6,  it  appears  that  Sa- 
zonof probably  wrote  the  answer  himself.  Before 
that,  however,  on  July  21,  Servia  notified  BerHn  (YeU 
low  Book,  Number  15)  that  she  would  agree  to  the 
Austrian  ultimatum  if  no  judiciary  cooperation  were 
demanded.  Austria,  probably  at  Germany's  instance, 
omitted  such  a  request,  and  when  Servia  interpreted 
several  passages  as  amounting  to  a  judiciary  coopera- 
tion, Austria  declared  (British  Blue  Book,  64)  that 
this  was  not  her  meaning.  Italy  considered  the  ulti- 
matum perfectly  acceptable,  and  advised  Servia  to 
accept  it,  as  late  as  July  27  {Yellow  Book,  No.  y2; 
Blue  Book,  No.  57).  England  had  no  objections.  Sir 
Edward  Grey  saying  {Blue  Book,  No.  47) 

it  would  be  absurd  if  we  were  to  appear  more  Servian 
than  the  Russians. 

while  Sazonof  said  {Blue  Book,  No.  78)  that  he 
"could  not  be  more  Servian  than  Servia."  Yet,  no- 
where is  there  a  record  of  wholesome,  moderating 
advice  given  to  Servia.  What  little  is  given  is  of  the 
nature  as  that  recorded  in  Number  26,  when  the 
Servian  minister  asked  the  French  Government  for 
advice,  and  in  response  was 

told  by  the  political  direction  as  a  purely  personal  matter 
that  Servia  should  try  to  gain  time. 

4.  Austria  began  general  mobilization,  being  first  to 
take  such  action. 

This  is  contradicted  (a)  by  Sazonof,  who,  on  July 
24,  said   (British  Blue  Book,  Number  6)   that  Rus- 


The  French  Yellow  Book  22^ 

sian  mobilization  would  have  to  be  "carried  out/' 
while  nobody  claims  that  Austria  had  begun  mobiliza- 
tion on  that  day,  and  (b)  by  Number  78  of  the  Rus- 
sian Orange  Book,  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the 
French  Yellow  Book,  of  which  the  first  paragraph 
reads,  in  part,  as  follows: 

Our  mobilization  was  caused  by  the  enormous  responsi- 
bility which  we  would  have  incurred  if  we  had  failed  to 
take  every  measure  of  precaution  at  a  moment  when 
Austria  .  .  .  was  bombarding  Belgrade  and  proceeding  to 
a  general  mobilization. 

5.  Germany  has  absolutely  forced  us  to  issue  today  a 
decree  of  mobilization.  Long  before  Russian  mobilization, 
on  Wednesday  last  (July  29),  as  I  have  already  tele- 
graphed to  you,  Baron  von  Schoen  announced  to  me  the 
forthcoming  proclamation  of  the  Kriegsgefahrzustand 
(i.  e.j  preparedness  for  war).  This  step  has  been  taken 
by  Germany,  and  sheltered  by  this  screen,  she  began  her 
mobilization.     (French  despatches.) 

In  the  first  place  the  despatch  here  referred  to  is 
not  given  in  the  Yellow  Book.  Secondly,  the  Kriegs- 
gefahrzustand was  announced  in  Berlin,  not  on 
Wednesday,  but  on  Friday,  July  31,  and  reported  to 
Paris  by  Jules  Cambon  in  Number  116,  and.  on  the 
same  day  by  Sir  E.  Goschen  in  London  (British  Blue 
Book,  Number  112).  Thirdly,  French  mobilization 
was  in  progress  *  a  day  earlier,  July  30 ;  for,  when  the 
German  ambassador  in  Paris  asked  about  it  on  that 
day,  it  was  not  denied.  This  is  told  in  No.  10 1.  This 
same  number,  finally,  which  is  a  despatch  from  the 

*  It  is  now  known  from  documents  found  on  the  Secretary 
of  the  British  Legation  in  Belgium  that  French  mobilization 
was  in  progress  as  early  as  July  27,  1914.  See  New  York 
Times,  April  14,  1915. 


226  Germany's  Point  of  View 

French  prime  minister  to  the  French  ambassador  in 
St.  Petersburg,  contains  this  order: 

Russia  should  take  no  immediate  steps  which  might  offer 
to  Germany  a  pretext  for  the  total  or  partial  mobilization 
of  her  forces. 

This  proves  that  Viviani  knew  perfectly  well  that 
Germany  had  not  mobilized,  even  partially,  all  excited 
reports  notwithstanding.  It  also  proves  how  misin- 
formed Sir  E.  Goschen  was  when  he  telegraphed  to 
London  on  July  29,  as  follows  (British  Blue  Book, 
Number  76)  : 

The  German  Secretary  of  State  .  .  .  was  much  troubled 
by  reports  of  mobilization  in  Russia  and  of  certain  mili- 
tary measures,  which  he  did  not  specify,  being  taken  in 
France.  He  subsequently  spoke  of  these  measures  to  my 
French  colleague,  who  informed  him  that  the  French  Gov- 
ernment had  done  nothing  more  than  the  German  Govern- 
ment had  done,  namely,  recalled  officers  on  leave.  His 
excellency  denied  having  done  this,  but  as  a  matter  of 
fact  it  is  true. 

These  five  points,  every  one  contrary  to  fact,  were 
to  be  transmitted  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  immediately. 
Some  he  may  have  believed;  others  he  may  have 
deemed  exaggerations.  There  is,  however,  no  record 
of  his  questioning  any,  either  in  the  French  or  the 
English  documents.  It  is  more  than  likely  that  he 
submitted  them  in  their  entirety  to  the  British  cabinet. 
Sir  Edward  has  the  reputation  of  being  astute.  From 
the  French  Yellow  Book,  however,  it  would  appear 
that  he  was  entirely  duped  by  Sazonof,  and  especially 
by  Paul  Cambon. 

The  Russian  attitude  was  consistent  throughout. 
It  was  thoroughly   Slav,  and  may  be   described  in 


The  French  Yellow  Book  22y 

Mr.  Guechov's  words  (quoted  in  Report  of  the  Balkan 
Wars,  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace, 
February,  1914,  page  65)  as  the  position  "of  working 
for  war  while  remaining  a  partisan  of  peace/'  The 
French  Yellow  Book  is  liberally  strewn  with  refer- 
ences to  Sazonof's  pacific  intentions,  but  nowhere  can 
an  indication  be  found  that  he  had  modified  his  first 
stand,  which  contemplated  war  unless  Russia  got 
exactly  what  she  wanted.  He  made  this  perfectly  clear 
to  France  and  England  from  the  first,  sending  them,  on 
July  25,  the  following  message  (British  Blue  Book, 
Number  17,  French  Yellow  Book,  52,  where  the 
despatch  is  shortened)  : 

Russia  could  not  allow  Austria  to  crush  Servia  and  be- 
come the  predominant  Power  in  the  Balkans,  and  if  she 
feels  secure  of  the  support  of  France  she  will  face  all 
the  risks  of  war. 

France  gave  such  assurances  almost  daily,  begin- 
ning July  24,  where  we  read  (British  Blue  Book,  Num- 
ber 6)  : 

France  would  fulfil  all  the  obligations  entailed  by  her 
alliance  with  Russia  if  necessity  arose,  besides  supporting 
Russia  strongly  in  any  diplomatic  negotiations. 

To  what  extent  Sir  Edward  Grey  believed  later 
promises  of  pacific  intentions  had  modified  Sazonof's 
views,  it  is  impossible  to  state.  The  English  and 
French  positions  will  be  discussed  later.  It  suffices, 
therefore,  to  state  that  in  Sazonof's  master  mind  the 
case  appeared  very  simple,  thus : 

(i)  We  cannot  allow  Austria  to  become  the  pre- 
dominant Power  in  the  Balkans;  (2)  Servia  must, 
therefore,  neither  humble  herself  by  accepting  Aus- 


228  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tria's  ultimatum,  nor  be  defeated  in  war;  (3)  Unless 
Servia  ^accepts  the  ultimatum,  Austria  will  make  war 
on  her  and  defeat  her  single  handed;  (4)  Russia, 
therefore,  will  enter  the  war,  which  will  mean  the 
entry  of  Germany,  owing  to  her  alliance  with  Austria ; 
(5)  Russia  alone  is  no  match  for  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria; therefore  (6)  France  must  join  Russia.  But 
while  she  has  promised  her  support,  Russia  can  be 
sure  of  it  only  under  two  conditions:  (a)  if  France 
feels  threatened  by  Germany;  (b)  if  she  can  be  as- 
sured of  England's  help;  (7)  all  that  is  necessary, 
therefore,  to  bring  about  these  conditions  is  to  fan 
France's  suspicions  of  Germany  —  and  how  valiantly 
this  was  done  is  seen  from  the  quotations  given  below. 
Sazonof  knew  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  and  the  French 
ambassador  in  London,  Paul  Cambon,  were  on  inti- 
mate terms.  If  France  could  be  thoroughly  aroused 
and  honestly  feel  herself  in  danger,  Cambon  could  be 
trusted  to  present  the  case  to  Sir  Edward  in  such  a 
light  that  the  latter  would  feel  in  honor  bound  to 
assist  France;  (8)  one  more  thing  was  very  desirable, 
viz.,  to  get  as  much  of  a  start  in  mobilization  as  pos- 
sible; Germany  could  mobilize  in  a  couple  of  days; 
if  she  felt  war  was  unavoidable,  she  would  mobilize 
at  once,  and  if  she  did  so,  not  even  the  three  great 
Powers,  Russia,  France,  and  England  combined  could 
withstand  her. 

It  is  idle  to  speculate  what  might  have  happened. 
But  if  Germany  had  known  of  Sazonof's  despatch 
of  July  25,  quoted  above,  and  expressing  his  deter- 
mination "  To  face  all  the  risks  of  war "  rather  than 
see  Austria  rehabilitate  herself,  and  if  she  had  known 
that  Russian  mobilization  was  going  on  as  early  as 


The  French  Yellow  Book  229 

July  24,  and  that  on  the  same  day  France  had  prom- 
ised to  support  Russia,  not  only  diplomatically,  but 
by  force  of  arms  (see  above),  and  if  she  had  finally 
also  known  of  Sir  Edward  Grey's  arrangement  of 
mutual  assistance  with  France,  contained  in  his  letter 
to  Paul  Cambon  of  1912,  and  first  made  public  in 
Parliament  on  August  3,  1914  —  if  she  had  known 
all  this  and  had,  therefore,  clearly  seen  the  impos- 
sibility of  an  understanding  unless  she  sacrificed  the 
interests  of  her  ally,  Austria,  which  she  was  of 
course,  unwilling  to  do,  the  present  state  of  affairs 
might  have  been  different.  If  Germany  had  struck  at 
once,  on  July  25,  most  people  familiar  with  military 
affairs  believe  she  would  have  defeated  France  easily 
before  Russia  had  enough  troops  ready  to  harass  her 
eastern  frontier;  and,  with  the  French  channel  and 
Atlantic  coasts  in  her  power,  English  resistance  would 
have  been  useless.  The  Belgian  horrors  and  the  con- 
tinued holocausts  on  the  French  and  Polish  battle- 
fields would  have  been  avoided.  Germany  has  laid 
a  terribly  costly  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  peace,  because 
she  delayed  her  mobilization  from  July  25  to  August 
2.  If  weakness  and  incompetence  had  been  the  cause 
of  this  delay,  no  censure  could  be  too  severe.  But 
Germany  knows,  and  in  the  future  the  whole  world 
will  know,  that  it  was  not  weakness  but  the  strong 
and  passionate  love  of  peace  which  determined  the 
course  of  the  Chancellor,  and,  after  his  return  to 
Berlin,  that  of  the  Emperor. 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  above  that,  according 
to  the  French  Yellow  Book  and  the  British  Blue  Book, 
references  to  a  contemplated  war  were  freely  spoken 
of  between  the  representatives  of  France,  Russia,  and 


230  Germany's  Point  of  View 

England,  but  that  they  were  omitted  from  the  conver- 
sations which  these  men  had  with  the  representatives 
of  Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy.  Two  very  character- 
istic records  of  this  mode  of  procedure  are  found  in 
Numbers  37  and  38  of  the  Yellow  Book,  and  Number 
25  of  the  British  Blue  Book. 

French  Number  38  contains  a  despatch  from  M. 
Paleologue,  the  French  ambassador,  at  St.  Petersburg, 
who  reports  under  date  of  July  25,  in  part  as  follows : 

M.  Sazonof  has  begged  the  German  ambassador  to  point 
out  the  danger  of  the  situation  to  his  Government.  He 
refrained,  however,  from  alluding  to  the  step  which 
Russia  will  no  doubt  be  led  to  take  if  Servia  is  threatened. 

This  refers  to  Russia's  declaration  that  she  "  will  face 
all  the  risks  of  war ''  rather  than  see  Austria  rehabili- 
tate herself  in  the  Balkans.  Here  is  a  bald-faced  state- 
ment that  Sazonof  intentionally  refrained  from  giving 
to  Germany  the  whole  message,  which  he  had  sent  to 
London  and  Paris. 

In  this  connection  the  French  Number  37  and  Brit- 
ish Number  25  should  be  compared.  The  former  is 
a  despatch  from  the  French  charge  d'affaires  in  Lon- 
don, M.  de  Fleuriau,  who  reports,  July  25,  as  follows : 

Sir  Edward  Grey  (speaking  to  the  German  ambassador) 
added  this  remark,  that  if  war  did  break  out  no  Power 
in  Europe  would  be  able  to  remain  aloof  from  it. 

Since  Germany  could  not  possibly  have  thought  that 
England  would  fight  against  France,  the  French 
premier,  receiving  this  message,  understood  it  to  mean 
that  Germany  has  been  clearly  told:  "If  there  is  to 
be  a  European  war,  England  will  join  France  against 
you."     This  is,  however,  not  the  message  which  reached 


The  French  Yellow  Book  231 

Germany,  nor  is  it  the  wording  which  Sir  Edward 
Grey  put  in  his  Blue  Book  Number  25 : 

I  concurred  in  his  (the  German  ambassador's)  observa- 
tion, and  said  that  I  felt  I  had  no  title  to  intervene  be- 
tween Austria  and  Servia,  but  as  soon  as  the  question 
became  one  as  between  Austria  and  Russia,  the  peace  of 
Europe  was  affected,  in  which  we  must  all  take  a  hand. 

The  German  ambassador,  and  any  reader  of  the  whole 
despatch,  can  only  understand  this  to  mean  that  while 
Sir  Edward  Grey  did  not  wish  to  "  intervene  between 
Austria  and  Servia,"  England  would  have  to  take  her 
part  in  the  discussions  later  ''between  Austria  and 
Russia."  This  is  not  the  only  message  given  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey  to  the  German  ambassador  in  London, 
which  was  reported  in  much  stronger,  at  times  even 
threatening,  terms,  in  Paris.  The  explanation  of  such 
discrepancies  will  be  given  in  the  discussion  of  the 
positions  of  France  and  England  as  they  appear  from 
the  records  of  the  French  Yellow  Book. 

As  regards  the  Russian  position,  a  few  more  de- 
spatches may  be  quoted,  which  show  that  the  Russian 
representatives  cleverly  fanned  the  flame  of  French 
suspicion  of  Germany.  In  Number  15,  July  21,  the 
Russian  charge  d'affaires  in  Berlin,  tells  Jules  Cam- 
bon  that  it  was  very  astonishing  that  the  German  Sec- 
retary of  Foreign  Affairs,  von  Jagow,  claimed  not  to 
know  the  contents  of  the  forthcoming  Austrian  ulti- 
matum. It  is  suggested  that  von  Jagow  is  lying.  In 
Number  27,  July  24,  the  Russian  charge  d'affaires  tells 
Jules  Cambon  that  there  are  a  great  many  people  in 
Germany  who  want  war ;  and  in  Number  29  he  insinu- 
ates that  the  time  of  the  ultimatum  has  been  so  fixed 
that  France  is  caught  at  a  disadvantage,  when  her 


232  Germany's  Point  of  Viezv 

president  and  premier  are  aboard  ship  on  their  return 
from  St.  Petersburg.  The  same  idea  is  repeated  in 
Number  29.  In  Number  32  the  Russian  ambassador 
in  London  tells  Paul  Cambon,  the  French  ambassador 
there,  that 

he  suspects  a  surprise  on  the  part  of  Germany  —  and  that 
war  against  Russia  would  be  accepted  willingly  in 
Germany. 

And,  to  mention  only  one  more  instance,  in  Number 
43,  the  Russian  charge  d'affaires  in  Berlin  speaks  to 
Jules  Cambon  in  a  very  pessimistic  strain,  and  omi- 
nously refers  to  the  ''  arrieres  pensees''  of  Germany. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Russia  carefully  selected 
the  men  for  the  task  of  arousing  French  suspicions. 
In  Berlin  these  insinuations  were  always  made  by  the 
Russian  charge  d'affaires,  Boniewski,  who  was  on  inti- 
mate terms  with  Jules  Cambon.  In  London,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  the  Russian  ambassador,  Count 
Benckendorff,  whose  cordial  relations  with  Paul  Cam- 
bon made  him  the  proper  spokesman  of  those  ideas 
which  were  meant  to  fan  the  suspicions  of  France. 

A  quotation  was  given  above  from  the  report  of  the 
Balkan  Wars,  published  by  the  Carnegie  Endowment 
for  International  Peace.  People,  who  wish  to  under- 
stand the  Servian  question  and  Russia's  attitude  to- 
ward it,  should  read  this  report,  and  get  an  idea  of 
the  kind  of  people,  cruel,  blood-thirsty,  vindictive, 
false,  and  headstrong,  with  whom  Austria  had  to  deal 
on  her  borders.  They  should  also  ponder  this  sen- 
tence (p.  41)  : 

The  Balkan  alliance  in  its  later  phase  was  but  a  tool  em- 
ployed by  local  policy  encouraged  by  Russia,  and  directed, 


The  French  Yellow  Book  233 

under  the  inspiration  of  Russian  diplomacy,  against  Ger- 
manic pretensions. 

There  are  very  few  people  familiar  with  the  Balkans, 
who  believe  that  the  conspiracy,  which  led  to  the  mur- 
der of  the  Archduke  and  the  beloved  Countess  of 
Hohenberg,  had  not  drawn  some  support  from  "the 
inspiration   of   Russian   diplomacy." 

The  French  attitude  toward  Germany,  in  recent 
years,  has  been  intentionally  hostile  and  suspicious. 
The  French  were  not  willing  to  be  on  good  terms  with 
Germany,  who,  on  her  part,  had  tried,  and  was  trying, 
to  be  friendly  with  France.  The  German  character  is 
not  vindictive,  and  unlike  France,  Germany's  thoughts 
were  not  hypnotized  by  a  wrong  suffered  in  the  past. 
Germany's  tremendous  growth  made  her  look  to  the 
future.  The  man  who  is  successful  in  life  and  con-i 
stantly  grappling  with  new  and  interesting  problems, 
has  no  time  to  nurse  a  grudge.  The  French,  however, 
were  a  nation  whose  growth  had  ceased,  who  —  as  one 
writer  puts  it  —  were  living  on  the  rich  inheritance 
of  their  past.  The  premier,  Viviani,  therefore,  could 
well  say  of  himself,  and  all  his  fellow-citizens,  that 
we  have  been 

bearing  in  silence  in  our  side  for  half  a  century,  the 
wound  she  [Germany]  opened.  {Yellow  Book,  Number 
159.) 

The  keynote  of  the  French  attitude  toward  Ger- 
many is  expressed  in  Number  i,  Annex  J,  of  March 
15,  19 1 3,  in  a  report  which  the  French  ambassador, 
Jules  Cambon,  forwarded  to  the  Home  Office,  and 
where  we  read : 

Since  we  neither  wish  to  be,  nor  can  be,  with  Germany. 


234  Germany's  Point  of  View 

This  was  unfortunately  the  attitude  of  the  French  Gov- 
ernment. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  honestly 
held,  but  future  historians  will  have  no  difficulty  in 
appreciating  the  extreme  delicacy,  and  forbearance, 
which  Germany  had  to  show  in  order  to  avoid,  under 
such  conditions,  an  earlier  clash.  Nor  must  it  be  be- 
lieved that  the  sentence  quoted  above  was  an  idle 
phrase.  How  very  real  it  was  appeared  from  a  little 
incident,  which  took  place  in  Harvard,  in  the  fall  of 

1913. 

The  French  exchange  professor  of  1912  had  been 
an  excellent  German  scholar  and  a  broad-minded  man, 
who  had  taken  pleasure  in  attending  the  gatherings  of 
the  Harvard  Deutsche  Verein  (German  Club).  The 
Deutsche  Verein  consists  almost  entirely  of  undergrad- 
uate students,  and  since  there  are  very  few  under- 
graduates from  Germany,  registered  in  Harvard,  the 
percentage  of  Germans  in  the  Verein  is  negligible. 
American  boys,  who  have  learned  German,  love  to 
practice  it,  to  conduct  a  '^  kneipe''  occasionally,  and 
to  sing  German  student  songs.  Since  the  French 
professor  of  1912  had  enjoyed  these  gatherings  during 
the  last  months  of  his  stay  in  Cambridge,  his  successor 
of  1913  was  invited,  together  with  the  German  ex- 
change professor,  to  the  opening  meeting  of  the 
Verein,  October,  19 13.  The  boys  happen  to  have  a 
very  pleasant  custom  of  electing  the  guests  of  honor 
at  their  first  meeting  to  honorary  membership.  The 
president  of  the  Verein  announces  this  at  the  proper 
time,  and  hangs  the  medal  of  the  Verein,  on  a  black, 
white,  and  red  ribbon,  around  the  neck  of  the  new 
member,  who  then  is  expected  to  say  a  few  words  be- 
fore the  boys  begin  to  sing.     The  German  professor 


The  French  Yellow  Book  235 

received  his  medal  first  and  was  duly  grateful.  But 
when  the  president  turned  to  his  other  guest,  the 
Frenchman  waved  the  medal  angrily  aside,  and  when 
the  president,  to  avoid  an  embarrassing  situation,  asked 
the  boys  to  sing  a  song,  and  this  song  was  Deutschland, 
the  French  exchange  professor  pushed  back  his  chair 
and  without  excusing  himself,  left  the  room!  Next 
day  he  let  it  be  known  through  his  friends  that  he 
regretted  the  incident.  Personally  he  had  no  objec- 
tion to  the  medal  on  the  black,  white  and  red  ribbon, 
or  to  the  song,  but  he  was  sent  to  Harvard  by  the 
French  Government,  and,  knowing  his  Governmenfs 
attitude  toward  Germany,  he  was  obliged  to  act  as  he 
did! 

Americans  who  have  been  told  that  France  was  de- 
sirous of  living  at  peace  with  Germany,  should  ponder 
this  incident.  If  such  a  thing  can  happen  in  America 
in  a  company  of  American  students,  and  the  profes- 
sor—  not  an  ambassador,  but  an  exchange  professor 
—  feel  obliged  to  be  ruder  than  he  would  personally 
like  to  be,  because  the  hostile  attitude  of  his  Govern- 
ment towards  Germany  demands  it,  then  the  words 
quoted  above  gain  a  meaning,  which  few  casual  read- 
ers have  given  them : 

Since  we  neither  wish  to  be,  nor  can  be,  with  Germany. 

It  is  quite  true  that  until  about  ten  or  fifteen  years 
ago  the  Franco-German  relations  had  been  constantly 
improving,  but  King  Edward  fanned  the  dying  spark 
of  the  French  desire  for  revenge  into  a  flame.  What 
had  seemed  hopeless  before,  viz.,  to  regain  Alsace-Lor- 
raine, began  to  appear  possible  with  the  help  of  Eng- 
land and  of  Russia.    Anti-German  writers  have  tried 


236  Germany's  Point  of  View 

to  make  it  appear  that  the  Morocco  incident  was  the 
cause  of  the  renewal  of  strained  relations  between 
France  and  Germany,  but  this  can  hardly  be  the  case, 
for  the  French,  themselves,  acknowledge  that  Germany 
was  badly  treated  in  the  Morocco  affair.  (See  Yellozv 
Book  I,  Annex  i,  "All  Germans  resent  our  having 
taken  their  share  in  Morocco.") 

There  are  constant  references  throughout  the  first 
part  of  the  French  Yellow  Book  to  this  effect.  If  it! 
had  not  been  for  the  very  pacific  intentions  of  the 
Emperor,  war  would  have  broken  out  in  1906,  and 
again  in  191 1.  And  in  both  years  Germany's  chances 
would  have  been  infinitely  better  than  they  were  in 
1914. 

Chapter  i,  of  the  Yellow  Book,  makes  very  interest- 
ing reading,  but  it  deserves  no  serious  attention.  The 
French  Government  has  chosen  to  publish  there  some 
of  the  many  confidential  reports  in  their  possession. 
Such  reports,  especially  when  their  source  is  not  given, 
cannot  be  used  as  proofs.  Number  2,  Annex  2,  which 
was  apparently  written  by  an  army  officer,  is  clearly 
shown  by  its  last  paragraph  to  be  spurious,  for  people 
who  know  anything  of  army  reports  recognize  that  mat- 
ters are  discussed  there  on  which  no  army  officer 
would  presume  to  express  an  opinion.  And  in  Hum- 
^^^  5^  J^^y  30>  I9i3>  von  Kiderlen  is  spoken  of  as 
planning  to  make  war  on  France,  when  as  a  matter 
of  fact  he  had  been  dead  for  more  than  six  months. 

The  papers  had  undoubtedly  come  to  the  French  em- 
bassy through  spies,  of  whom  unfortunately  all  Gov- 
ernments have  need.  In  the  report  of  General  Ducarme 
through  the  Belgian  Minister  of  War,  recently  pub- 
lished by  the  German  Government,  that  general  refers 


The  French  Yellow  Book  237 

to  the  secret  information  concerning  the  German  army, 
which  the  British  Lieutenant  Colonel  Barnardiston  had 
furnished  him,  and  he  naively  added  that  he  had  been 
very  careful  not  to  tell  Barnardiston  that  he  did  not 
know  whether  the  Belgian  system  of  spies  was  in  good 
working  order  or  not.  Spies  are  expensive  and  uncer- 
tain, and  most  Governments,  therefore,  dispense  with 
their  services  in  the  capitals  of  their  own  allies.  This 
may  explain  why  neither  Germany  nor  Italy  had  a 
previous  accurate  knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the 
Austrian  ultimatum  to  Servia,  while  France  knew  them 
as  early  as  July  19  (see  Number  13). 

Only  one  other  point  should  be  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  Chapter  i,  because  there  seems  to  exist 
a  misunderstanding  concerning  it  in  many  quarters. 
Germany  increased  her  army  twice  within  recent  years. 
The  first  time,  as  a  result  of  the  weakening  of  Turkey, 
which  strengthened  the  smaller  Balkan  States,  and 
consequently  in  case  of  war  would  have  made  greater 
demands  on  the  military  resources  of  Austria.  What- 
ever the  reports  may  tell  now,  nobody  in  Europe  con- 
sidered this  increase  unwarranted,  or  in  any  way  di- 
rected against  France.  The  latter,  nevertheless,  in- 
creased her  army  enormously  by  extending  the  term 
of  service  from  two  to  three  years.  Germany,  there- 
upon, followed  suit  with  her  great  and  recent  increase 
of  armaments. 

Possibly  a  word  may  also  be  in  place  concerning  the 
centenary  celebrations  of  1813.  The  French  Yellow 
Book  tries  to  represent  them  as  a  conscious  means  re- 
sorted to  by  the  Government  to  create  a  warlike  spirit 
among  the  people.  It  is  impossible  to  prove  or  dis- 
prove this  assertion.    It  will,  however,  be  remembered 


238  Germany's  Point  of  View 

that  there  were  people  also  in  America,  who  believed 
that  the  Anglo-American  preparations  for  the  centen- 
ary celebration  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  had  an  ulterior 
motive,  while  the  great  mass  of  the  people  had  no  such 
thought.  The  same  is  true  of  Germany.  The  cele- 
brations of  the  deliverance  of  Germany  from  the  Na- 
poleonic yoke  in  181 3  were  largely  spontaneous  and 
did  not  contemplate  the  creation  of  enthusiasm  for 
another  war.  Since  the  French  ambassador,  however, 
sent  different  reports  to  Paris,  he  undoubtedly  be- 
lieved these  reports,  and  no  impartial  student  can  deny 
that  these  celebrations  may  have  increased  the  sus- 
picions of  France. 

Being  suspicious,  both  the  French  Foreign  Office 
at  Paris,  and  Jules  Cambon  in  Berlin,  permitted  them- 
selves to  follow  a  course  in  their  relations  with  the 
German  ambassador.  Baron  von  Schoen,  and  the  Ger- 
man secretary,  von  Jagow,  the  rudeness  of  which 
made  cooperation  impossible.  In  reading  the  Yellow 
Book  one  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  French  officials, 
in  writing  up  their  several  interviews,  drew  somewhat 
on  their  imagination;  for  it  is  not  at  all  difficult  to 
imagine,  when  the  other  party  to  a  verbal  encounter  is 
gone,  that  one  had  the  better  of  him.  Although  it  is, 
therefore,  by  no  means  necessary  to  believe  that 
Martin,  Berthelot,  and  Jules  Cambon  were  as  impolite 
as  their  writings  would  make  one  think,  their  attitude 
toward  the  German  officials  can  not  have  been  cheerful. 

In  Numbers  15  and  77,  Cambon  cannot  refrain  from 
expressing  **  his  astonishment "  that  von  Jagow  should 
not  have  any  previous  knowledge  of  the  Austrian  note. 
The  same  occurs  in  Number  30,  where  Cambon  is 
actually  so  insulting  that  von  Jagow  replies : 


The  French  Yellow  Book  239 

It  is  only  because  we  are  talking  personally  between  our- 
selves that  I  allow  you  to  say  that  to  me. 

From  Number  26  it  appears  that  Italy  also  had  no 
previous  knowledge  of  the  note.  Her  word,  however, 
was  readily  accepted,  while  the  German  officials  were 
practically  charged  with  lying. 

Number  28  describes  an  interview  between  Martin 
and  Baron  von  Schoen,  which  is  far  from  cordial.  In 
Number  36  Baron  von  Schoen  is  practically  accused  of 
dishonesty  as  having  himself  given  out  some  infor- 
mation to  the  press.  Numbers  55,  56,  and  57  are  full 
of  unworthy  suspicions  and  in  part  of  insulting  insinu- 
ations. The  lecture  administered  to  the  ambassador 
by  a  subordinate  of  the  French  ministry,  is  in  a  class 
by  itself.  Equally  unfriendly  is  the  review  Number 
61  of  Baron  von  Schoen's  actions,  and  the  language 
which  Cambon  permitted  himself  toward  von  Jagow 
in  Number  74,  is  most  remarkable.  The  Austrian 
ambassador  is  treated  much  better  (Number  75 j,  while 
the  Italian  representatives  invariably  meet  the  courtesy 
which  is  due  their  stations. 

The  explanation  of  the  continued  lack  of  courtesy 
toward  the  Germans  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
French  ministers,  as  previously  stated,  were  suspicious 
of  Germany,  and  feared  that,  in  this  particular  case, 
Germany  wanted  to  "  compromise  France."  (Number 
62.)  Martin  was  always  ready  to  speak  of  his  de- 
sire to  work  for  peace,  but  w^hen  Germany  suggested 
a  concerted  action,  and  a  notice  to  that  effect  in  the 
press,  he  declined.  In  his  report  to  Premier  Viviani 
he  remarks  that  he  had  changed  Baron  von  Schoen's 
wording.  The  notice  he  had  given  to  the  press,  he 
said,  was  harmless,  for  the 


240  Germany's  Point  of  View 

colorless   phrasing  avoids   appearance  of   solidarity  with 
Germany.     Number  62,  July  27. 

Few  of  the  readers  of  this  article  are  diplomats,  but 
it  takes  no  training  in  diplomacy  to  realize  that  a 
helpful  understanding  between  two  nations  is  impossi- 
ble if  one  is  afraid  of  taking  any  steps  which  might 
give  the  "  appearance  of  solidarity  "  with  the  other. 

So  far  as  France,  therefore,  was  concerned,  amica- 
ble cooperation  with  Germany  to  bring  about  an  un- 
derstanding, that  would  be  fair  to  all,  was  out  of  the 
question.  France  took  her  cue  from  Russia.  Call 
it  the  loyalty  of  a  good  ally  —  so  far  as  Russia  was 
concerned,  or  the  obstinacy  of  a  jealous  and  suspicious 
opponent  —  so  far  as  Germany  was  concerned,  the  re- 
sult remained  the  same.  From  the  very  first  meeting 
of  the  French  and  British  Ambassadors  with  the  Rus- 
sian Premier,  Sazonof,  on  July  24  (British  Blue 
Book,  Number  6  —  see  above).  The  French  task  was 
perfectly  simple:  (i)  Stand  firmly  by  Russia,  (2) 
convince  England  that  she  must  join  Russia  and 
France.  Two  modes  of  attack  promised  success:  (a) 
An  appeal  to  England's  own  interests,  (b)  an  ap- 
peal to  her  chivalry  and  Sir  Edward  Grey's  implied 
promise  in  his  letter  of  November,  1912.  His  prom- 
ise was  likely  to  be  redeemed,  if  France  could  show 
that  she  stood  in  danger  of  her  life  by  an  attack  by 
Germany.  There  is  not  one  despatch  printed  in  the 
French  Yellow  Book  incompatible  with  the  premise 
that  this  was  France's  real  attitude. 

The  question  whether  this  renders  France  morally 
responsible  for  the  war  is  a  much  broader  one,  for  it 
depends  on  the  justifications  of  her  suspicions  of  Ger- 
many.   In  the  present  generation,  when  even  the  most 


The  French  Yellow  Book  241 

impartial  students  cannot  help  feeling  sympathy  for 
one  side  or  the  other,  and  before  the  secret  archives 
are  opened,  it  cannot  be  settled.  Nobody,  however, 
will  deny  that  France,  in  the  crisis  of  19 14,  w^th  or 
without  justification,  took  not  a  single  independent 
step  that  might  have  avoided  the  calamity  of  war,  ex- 
cept at  the  absolute  submission  of  Austria  and  Ger- 
many to  the  will  of  Russia. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE   FRENCH    YELLOW   BOOK 

(Continued) 

THE  attitude  of  Austria,  strangely  enough,  is  only 
slightly  touched  upon  in  the  French  Yellow 
Book,  and  is  not  much  different  from  that  depicted  in 
the  British  Blue  Book,  The  one  notable  exception 
is  the  Austrian  explanation,  a  note  of  considerable 
length,  presented  to  the  French  Foreign  Office  on  July 
2y,  1914.  A  similar  note  was  presented  to  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  who  did  not  print  it  in  the  British  Blue  Book, 
but  substituted  for  it  (British  Blue  Book,  Number  48) 
his  own  brief  summary.  And  to  this  day  England 
seems  to  be  unaware  of  the  fact  that  Austria  has  pre- 
sented her  charges  to  the  world,  for  Mr.  Cecil  Chester- 
ton, in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Yiereck  in  New  York  on 
January  17,  based  one  of  his  chief  arguments  on  Aus- 
tria's neglect  to  do  this. 

The  French  acting  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  in 
forwarding  this  note,  calls  it  "a  positive  act  of  accu- 
sation agaiAst  Servia."  The  note*  contains  almost 
5,000  words  and  should  be  read  in  its  entirety  by  those 
who  would  form  their  own  unbiased  opinion  of  the 
justice  of  Austria's  position.     If  one  believes  in  the 

*  The  note  as  printed  in  the  Austrian  Red  Book  contains 
several  Annexes.  It  is  not  definitely  known  whether  these 
are  later  additions,  or  whether  the  French ,  Government  sup- 
pressed them  in  the  Yellow  Book. 

242 


The  French  Yellow  Book  243 

truth  of  this  accusation,  any  defence  of  Servia  appears 
unrighteous.  If,  however,  one  beHeves  that  Austria, 
who  was  the  vitally  interested  party,  held  exaggerated 
views  of  Servians  guilt,  one  can  nevertheless  not  deny 
her  good  faith.  If  this  Austrian  explanation  had 
been  presented  in  its  entirety  to  Parliament  on  Au- 
gust 3,  when  Sir  Edward  Grey  made  his  famous 
speech,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  English  public 
opinion  could  have  been  won  for  a  war  which,  in  its 
origin,  was  a  defence  of  Servia;  for  all  the  available 
evidence,  and  among  it  the  Balkan  Report  of  the 
Carnegie  Peace  Endowment,  made  it  not  at  all  unlikely 
that  Servia  had  been  guilty  as  Austria  charged.  If 
this  had  been  known,  it  would  have  been  possible  to 
formulate  in  Parliament  definite  conditions,  under 
which  Great  Britain  would  have  promised  to  remain 
neutral  in  a  war  which  Russia  had  determined  to  wage 
in  the  defence  of  Servia.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  it  will 
be  remembered,  had  refused  to  formulate  such  con- 
ditions on  August  I.  The  publication  of  this  Austrian 
note,  therefore,  is  one  of  the  most  important  contribu- 
tions which  has  been  made  to  the  Austro-German 
cause,  not  only  because  of  its  positive  value,  but  also 
because  all  fair-minded  people  will  ask  why  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  omitted  it  from  the  British  Blue  Book. 
If  he  omitted  this  important  document,  are  there  not 
perhaps  other  unpublished  papers  which  may  throw 
a  different  light  on  the  case?  And  if  this  is  so,  are 
not  all  attempts,  like  that  of  Hon.  Mr.  Beck,  to  close 
the  case  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  Civilization, 
premature  ? 

But  the  French   Yellow  Book  presents  other  evi- 
dence previously  not  available  in  America. 


244  Germany's  Point  of  View 

(i)  The  less  well  known  Servian  press,  instead 
of  expressing  regret  at  the  murder  of  the  archduke 
and  the  innocent  Countess  of  Hohenberg,  and  sym- 
pathy for  their  orphaned  children  and  the  aged  Em- 
peror, was  *' daring,  more  aggressive,  and  frequently 
insulting/'     (Number  14.) 

(2)  Austria,  it  would  seem,  had  intended  to  de- 
mand in  her  ultimatum  *' judicial  participation"  in 
the  punishment  of  the  crime.  This,  von  Jagow  in 
Berlin  was  informed,  would  be  unacceptable  to  Servia, 
but  if  no  such  "  judicial  participation  "  were  demanded, 
the  Servian  minister  said,  "his  country  would  accept 
Austria's  demands."     (Number  15.) 

(3)  Germany,  thereupon,  seems  to  have  requested 
Austria  to  modify  her  demands  in  this  respect.  (Num- 
bers 19  and  20.)  At  any  rate,  the  final  ultimatum 
contained  only  a  demand  for  Austrian  participation 
in  the  investigation,  leaving  the  adjudication  solely 
in  the  hands  of  Servia  (Number  24).  Austria,  un- 
doubtedly, informed  Germany  that  her  suggestion  had 
been  heeded,  for  she  told  France  (Number  20)  that 
her  "note  made  it  possible  to  count  on  a  pacific 
denouement!'  With  Servia's  promise,  therefore 
(Number  15),  that  any  other  demands  which  Austria 
might  make  would  be  acceptable,  von  Jagow  felt  that 
the  peace  of  Europe  was  not  endangered.  The  Ba- 
varian premier,  at  any  rate,  on  July  23  believed  in  a 
peaceful  settlement  (Number  21). 

In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  a 
judge  of  the  New  York  State  Supreme  Court  has 
called  attention  to  the  similarity  between  the  actipn  of 
Austria  in  demanding  participation  in  the  investiga- 


The  French  Yellow  Book  245 

tion  of  the  Serajevo  murder,  and  that  of  the  United 
States  in  demanding  participation  in  the  investigation 
of  the  blowing  up  of  the  Maine. 

The  Austrian  note  was  presented  on  July  23,  1914, 
and  by  the  "  stiffness  "  of  its  wording  surprised  every- 
body, and,  not  the  least,  Germany.  Throughout  the 
French  Yellow  Book,  and  in  part  in  the  British  Blue 
Book,  doubt  is  expressed  in  the  German  assertion  that 
Germany  had  not  known  the  Austrian  ultimatum  be- 
fore it  was  presented.  It  must  be  agreed  that  it  seems 
strange  that  Austria  should  present  her  ultimatum 
without  first  showing  it  to  her  allies.  But  Italy  states 
more  than  once  that  she  had  not  seen  the  note  before- 
hand (Numbers  26,  50,  et  al.),  and  gives  this  as  the 
reason  why  she  is  not  bound  to  join  in  the  war  (Num- 
bers 50,  51).  Nobody  doubts  that  Italy  is  speaking 
the  truth.  Why,  then,  doubt  Germany?  For  is  it 
more  unusual  for  Austria  to  make  her  demarche  with- 
out showing  her  note  to  Germany  than  to  Italy  ?  But, 
it  is  claimed,  Germany  had  ''cognizance"  of  the  note, 
for  the  Bavarian  premier  had  said  so  before  the  note 
was  published.  (Number  21.)  This  is  true,  but  it 
may  not  have  meant  more  than  the  previous  general 
knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  note  which  Italy 
had  (Number  y2,  where  the  French  ambassador 
reports  that  the  Italian  premier  had  been  well  aware 
that  the  note  was  to  be  "vigorous  and  energetic 
in  character''),  or  which  even  France  had  (Num- 
ber 14,  where  a  full  summary  of  the  demands  of 
the  note  is  given  several  days  before  it  is  actually 
presented). 

In  Number  14,  which  is  an  enclosure  in  the  report 
of  the  French  ambassador  in  Vienna,  and  which  was 


246  Germany's  Point  of  View 

written  on  July  20,  that  is,  several  days  before  the 
note  was  presented,  these  memorable  words  occur : 

The  shifts  by  which  Servia  will  no  doubt  wish  to  delay 
a  direct  and  clear  reply  have  been  taken  into  account, 
and  that  is  why  a  brief  delay  will  be  fixed  for  her  to 
notify  her  acceptance  or  refusal. 

Compare  with  this  Number  26,  where  the  only 
advice  given  by  France  to  Servia  is  that  she  '^  should 
seek  to  gain  time."     (Compare  also  32.) 

But  Austria  knew  what  that  meant.  She  had,  once 
before,  in  19 13,  endeavored  to  curb  Servian  plots, 
and  the  whole  danger  threatening  her  very  existence 
from  that  quarter.  She  had,  at  that  time,  sounded 
Italy  and  Germany  before  making  a  demarche,  and 
the  result  had  been  that  she  had  been  restrained  from 
taking  any  steps.  This  whole  affair,  while  public 
knowledge  for  over  a  year,  was  announced  recently 
in  the  press,  as  if  a  new  secret  had  been  revealed, 
when  Signor  Giolitti,  ex-premier  of  Italy,  referred  to 
it  in  the  Italian  Parliament  (see  Chapter  IX).  What 
assurances  Austria  received  in  1913,  if  she  undertook 
no  punitive  expedition  against  Servia,  is  not  known. 
It  is,  however,  known  that  many  Austrians  blame  Ger- 
many indirectly  for  the  murder  of  the  archduke;  for, 
if  Germany  had  supported  Austria  in  1913,  and  had 
not  represented  to  her  that  the  Servian  propaganda  was 
not  so  bad  as  she  thought  it  was,  and  that  she  could  be 
patient,  and  that  Servia,  on  the  good  advice  of  Rus- 
sia, would  desist  from  her  plottings ;  if,  in  short,  Aus- 
tria had  been  permitted  in  19 13  to  put  an  end,  once 
and  for  all,  to  Servian  intrigues,  then  the  tragedy  of 
Serajevo  would  not  have  taken  place. 

Nobody  can  deny  the  justice  of  these  sentiments. 


The  French  Yellow  Book  247 

and  consequently  the  extreme  delicacy  which  was 
demanded  of  Germany  in  trying  to  exert  once  again 
a  moderating  influence  on  Austria.  The  latter  had 
very  clearly  stated  (British  Blue  Book,  38)  that  it 
was  for  her  a  question  of  life  or  death.  Every  de- 
mand, therefore,  of  Germany  which  could  appear  to 
Austria  to  be  in  the  nature  of  permitting  Servia  to 
escape  her  just  punishment,  and  of  preventing  Austria 
from  securing  peace  on  her  southern  border' — as 
she  had  been  prevented  from  doing  a  year  ago  —  was 
sure  to  be  met  with  the  reply,  ''  I  yielded  to  you  last 
year,  and  you  see  what  was  the  result.  If  I  yield 
again  today,  the  result  will  be  not  the  death  of  an 
archduke,  but  the  death  of  the  empire.''  It  is  on  the 
background  of  such  sentiments  that  the  Austro-Ger- 
man  altitude  should  be  viewed. 

It  is,  at  first  sight,  not  easy  to  draw  a  correct  pic- 
ture of  the  attitude  of  Germany  from  the  French 
Yellow  Book,  where  more  than  one  hundred  des- 
patches and  notes  have  been  brought  together  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  proving  that  Germany,  and 
she  alone,  deserves  the  opprobrium  of  having  started 
the  great  war.  People  familiar  with  sifting  evidence, 
however,  and  those  acquainted  with  the  principles  of 
the  so-called  higher  criticism,  have  no  difficulty  in 
separating  the  expressions  of  opinion  from  the  state- 
ments of  facts.  The  former  were  valuable  in  revealing 
the  French  attitude  toward  Germany;  the  latter,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  the  only  safe  grounds  on  which 
to  reconstruct  the  position  taken  by  Germany  in  the 
momentous  days  leading  up  to  the  war.  Up  to  and 
including  the  twenty-ninth  of  July,  Germany  did  not 
believe  that  Russia  would  go  to  war.     This  appears 


248  Germany's  Point  of  View 

from  several  despatches,  and  most  especially  from 
Numbers  63  and  96  (Yellow  Book),  The  latter  is  a 
despatch  from  the  French  ambassador  in  Rome,  M. 
Barriere,  who  had  an  interview  with  the  Italian  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs,  the  Marquis  di  San  Giuliano, 
whom  he  quoted  as  follows: 

Unfortunately,  in  this  whole  affair,  it  had  been  and  still 
was  the  conviction  of  Austria  and  Germany  that  Russia 
would  not  march.  In  this  connection  he  read  me  a 
despatch  from  M.  Boliati  reporting  an  interview  he  had 
today  with  Herr  von  Jagow,  in  which  the  latter  again 
repeated  that  he  did  not  believe  that  Russia  would  march. 
He  based  this  belief  upon  the  fact  that  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment had  just  sent  an  agent  to  Berlin  to  deal  with 
certain  financial  matters.  The  Austrian  ambassador  in 
Berlin  had  also  said  to  his  English  colleague  that  he 
did  not  believe  in  a  general  war,  Russia  being  neither  in 
the  temper  nor  in  a  condition  to  make  war. 

A  report  of  a  similar  statement  by  the  British  am- 
bassador in  Rome  is  printed  in  the  British  Blue  Book, 
Number  80,  July  29: 

He  (the  Italian  minister  of  foreign  affairs)  added  that 
there  seemed  to  be  difficulty  in  making  Germany  believe 
that  Russia  was  in  earnest.  As  Germany,  however,  was 
really  anxious  for  good  relations  with  ourselves,  if  she 
believed  that  Great  Britain  would  act  with  Russia  and 
France,  he  thought  that  it  would  have  a  great  effect. 

Two  observations  occur  at  once:  (i),  Since  Sazonof 
had  decided,  on  July  25,  "  to  run  all  the  risks  of  war," 
if  he  could  have  the  support  of  France  (see  above  and 
British  Blue  Book,  17),  his  sending  a  financial  agent 
to  Berlin  was  a  clever,  some  may  say  conscienceless, 
ruse  in  order  to  gain  time  for  his  mobilization  before 
Germany  grew  suspicious.  (2),  Since  Sir  Edward 
Grey  knew  of  Sazonof's  determination,  and  was  per- 


The  French  Yellow  Book  249 

sonally  in  honor  bound  by  his  letter  to  Jules  Cambon 
of  November,  19 12,  to  secure  the  support  of  Parlia- 
ment for  France  in  the  case  of  war,  he  had  it  in  his 
power  to  enlighten  Germany.  As  appeared  above, 
from  a  comparison  between  Yellow  Book,  Number  66, 
and  Blue  Book,  Number  47,  France  was  told  that  Sir 
Edward  had  done  so,  while,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
message  which  reached  Germany  was  so  weak  that  it 
stated  only  that  England  would  have  to  take  a  hand 
in  the  mediation,  if  the  difficulties  spread. 

Early  in  the  morning  of  July  30,  Sir  Edward  seems 
to  have  committed  himself  definitely  to  the  support 
of  France  and  Russia,  and  Germany  seems  to  have 
been  informed  of  this,  either  directly  or  by  secret 
agents.  At  any  rate,  on  July  30,  Sir  Edward  Grey 
received  a  message  from  his  ambassador  in  Rome, 
stating  that  Germany  now  seemed 

convinced  that  we  should  act  with  France  and  Russia, 
and  was  most  anxious  to  avoid  issue  with  us.  (British 
Blue  Book  Number  106). 

Germany's  position,  therefore,  and  the  actions  she 
took  may  be  clearly  divided  into  two  parts :  ( i ) ,  Be- 
fore July  30,  while  she  was  convinced  that  the  Servian 
difficulty  would  not  result  in  war,  because  Russia 
was  not  in  earnest,  and  England  would  not  join  her, 
and  (2)  after  July  30,  when  she  knew  that  Sir 
Edward  Grey  had  promised  to  support  France  and 
Russia  in  the  defence  of  Servia.  The  question  of 
Belgium  had  not  yet  arisen. 

The  first  reference,  before  July  30,  occurs  in  a 
despatch  from  Berlin,  July  4  (Yellow  Book,  Number 
9),  which  reads,  in  part: 


250  Germany's  Point  of  View 

[Germany]  hoped  that  Servia  would  give  satisfaction  to 
the  demands  which  Austria  might  address  to  her,  with 
a  view  to  the  search  for  and  the  prosecution  of  those 
concerned  in  the  Serajevo  crime.  He  added  that  he  was 
confident  that  this  would  be  the  case,  because  if  Servia 
acted  otherwise,  she  would  have  the  opinion  of  the  whole 
civiHzed  world  against  her. 

In  Number  15,  July  21,  Servia  informed  Germany 
that  she  would  accept  all  the  Austrian  demands  except 
that  of  judicial  cooperation.  Germany,  thereupon, 
obtained  Austria's  modification  of  this  intended  de- 
mand. (See  above,  and  Number  19,  '^Germany  is 
trying  to  moderate  Austria."  ) 

In  Number  16,  July  21,  Germany  is  reported  as 
intending  to  support  Austria. 

In  Number  20,  July  23,  Austria  is  reported  more 
conciliatory,  undoubtedly  at  the  advice  of  Germany, 
referred  to  in  Number  19.  She  even  believes  that  her 
note  makes  it  possible  to  count  on  a  specific  denoue- 
ment. The  German  ambassador  in  Vienna  is  quoted 
as  personally  in  favor  of  violent  measures  against 
Servia,  but  takes  pains  to  explain  that  the  Chancellor 
is  "not  quite  with  him." 

In  Number  27,  July  24,  the  French  ambassador  in 
Vienna  reports  an  interview  with  the  Servian  min- 
ister. The  latter  does  not  deny  his  country's  guilt, 
but  adds  that  Servia,  while  willing  to  punish  all  other 
criminals,  will  not  punish  any  army  officers.* 

Number  28,  July  24,  contains  a  note  presented  to 
the  French  Foreign  Office  by  Baron  von  Schoen,  the 
German  ambassador,  in  which  the  German  position 
is  stated.     Briefly  summarized,  it  is  as  follows: 

*  In  this  refusal  one  may  see  the  hand  of  Russia,  for  in 
the  Balkan  Report  of  the  Carnegie  Peace  Endowment,  it  is 
stated  that  many  Servian  officers  are  in  the  pay  of  Russia. 


The  French  Yellow  Book  251 

1.  Belgrade  is  the  active  center  of  the  agitation 
which  plans  to  disrupt  the  Austro-Hungarian  empire, 
and  which  has  resulted  in  the  murder  of  the  archduke 
and  his  wife. 

2.  Austria  has  shown  "great  self-control  and  mod- 
eration," for  the  agitation  goes  back  a  number  of 
years,  and  has  been  carried  on  "  under  the  eyes,  or  at 
least  with  the  tacit  tolerance,  of  official  Servia." 

3.  The  German  Government  ardently  desires  the 
localization  of  the  conflict,  since  by  natural  play  of 
alliances  any  intervention  by  another  Power  would 
have  incalculable  consequences.  (The  whole  note 
should  be  read.) 

In  Number  29,  July  24,  Jules  Cambon  telegraphed 
from  Berlin,  as  follows : 

The  German  Emperor,  through  a  feeling  of  monarchical 
solidarity  and  horror  for  the  crime,  is  likely  to  show  him- 
self  less    conciliatory. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1913,  Germany  had 
prevented  Austria  from  taking  the  punitive  measures 
against  Servia,  which  Austria  had  deemed  necessary 
for  her  safety. 

On  the  same  day,  July  24,  von  Jagow  suggested 
to  the  French  ambassador  that  Servians  friends  should 
give  her  good  advice  (Number  30),  but  from  Num- 
ber 26  it  appears  that  the  only  advice  that  France 
gave  her  was  "to  gain  time.''  The  French  press,  on 
the  other  hand,  launched  an  attack  against  Germany, 
in  articles  headed  Menace  Allemande.  Baron  von 
Schoen,  therefore,  called  on  Martin,  asking  him 
to  contradict  these  statements,  and  to  work  together 
with  Germany   for  peace    (Number  36).     How   M. 


252  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Martin  refused  this  request,  for  fear  of  appearing 
too  friendly  with  Germany,  has  been  told  above. 

Then  the  general  game  of  blindman's  buff  began. 
Germany  wished  to  have  the  conflict  localized,  and 
endeavored  to  convince  the  Entente  Powers  of  the 
justice  of  the  Austrian  cause.  She  told  them  frankly 
that  Austria  believed  her  "  security  and  integrity " 
at  stake  (Number  25),  and  that  Germany  agreed  with 
her.  Austria's  temper,  moreover,  was  such  that  to 
urge  her  too  hard  would  only  make  matters  worse 
{Blue  Book,  Number  107),  and,  while  Austria  ob- 
jected to  any  "  conference,"  she  would  be  glad  to  listen 
to  "  friendly  counsel ''  from  the  Entente  Powers 
(Numbers  70  and  73).  Since  Russia  felt  obliged  to 
uphold  Servia,  France  (Number  62)  or  England 
(Number  80)  should  give  moderating  advice  in  St. 
Petersburg.  Both  refused,  for  they  believed  that  Ger- 
many should  make  stronger  presentations  in  Vienna, 
or,  failing  this,  four  Powers,  Germany  and  Italy,  Eng- 
land and  France,  should  gather  in  a  conference  to  settle 
this  matter. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  disentangle  the  multifari- 
ous suggestions  made,  none  of  which  were  entirely 
satisfactory,  either  to  Austria  or  to  Russia.  Austria 
believed  her  existence  at  stake,  and,  having  been 
thwarted  in  1913,  was  determined  to  punish  Servia 
this  time,  and  to  make  the  recurrence  of  Servian 
intrigues  impossible.  Germany,  therefore,  while  un- 
able to  accept  any  of  the  proposals  made  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  continued  her  pressure  on  Austria, 
gently  but  firmly,  in  her  endeavor  to  get  such  assur- 
ances of  moderation  that  the  reasonable  objections  of 
Russia  would  be  met.     She  transmitted  Russia's  re- 


The  French  Yellow  Book  253 

quest  for  an  extension  of  time  (Number  41),  although 
von  Jagow  beHeved  that  it  could  not  be  granted. 
Strangely  enough,  Russia  also  was  convinced  that 
her  request  could  not  be  granted  (Number  45),  prov- 
ing that  it  was  only  a  feint. 

This  happened  on  July  25,  and  on  July  26  the 
French  ambassador  in  Vienna  reported  that  he  be- 
lieved Austria  was  forced  by  circumstances  to  take 
military  action  (Number  55).  This  is  one  of  the 
few  despatches  printed  in  the  Yellow  Book  which  are 
calm  in  tone  and  obviously  desirous  of  being  just. 

On  the  next  day,  July  2y,  Germany  has  succeeded 
in  getting  Austria^s  consent  to  some  kind  of  a  cabinet 
meeting  of  the  four  Powers,  and  therefore  accepts 
Sir  Edward  Grey's  proposal  in  principle.  The  case 
now  stands  as  follows  (Number  y2)  :  Italy  suggests 
that  Servia  submit  to  the  just  demands  of  Austria, 
but  do  so  at  the  request  of  the  four  Powers,  which 
would  hurt  her  pride  less.  Germany  was  willing,  Sir 
Edward  Grey  seemed  favorable  (British  Blue  Book, 
Numbers  47  and  78),  and,  under  those  conditions, 
France  would  have  to  agree.  The  case,  therefore,  was 
on  the  way  to  a  settlement,  when  Sazonof  declined  to 
accept  Sir  Edward's  offer.  The  reason  he  advanced 
was  another  ruse  to  lull  Germany's  suspicions,  and  to 
gain  time.  He  said  that  Germany  was  continuing  to 
exert  a  friendly  influence  in  Vienna,  and  that  it  was 
unnecessary  to  take  up  Sir  Edward's  suggestion  at 
present  (British  Blue  Book,  Number  78).  This  really 
was,  so  far  as  one  can  gather  from  the  Yellow  Book, 
the  last  time  when  an  amicable  settlement  was  pos- 
sible. The  opportunity  had  been  made  by  Sir  Edward 
Grey's  proposal,  Italy's  ready  acquiescence,  and  Ger- 


254  Germany s  Point  of  View 

many's  counsel,  which  made  Austria  wilHng  to  accept 
it.  Austria  would  have  gained  Servians  consent  to  her 
demands,  and  Russia  would  have  saved  Servia  from 
the  ignominy  of  being  coerced  by  her  hated  neighbor. 
She  would  have  had  the  consolation  of  having  yielded, 
not  to  Austria,  but  to  four  of  the  great  Powers. 

One  must  not  underrate  the  sacrifice  Austria 
brought  by  her  consent  to  this  plan,  for  she  had  deter- 
mined to  humble  Servia,  and  could  hardly  claim  to 
have  done  so  when  she  herself  was  forced  to  submit 
her  case  to  the  adjudication  of  four  Powers.  The 
pressure  of  Germany  must  have  been  very  great  to 
make  her  willing  to  do  this. 

With  Sazonof's  refusal,  matters  grew  worse.  Rus- 
sia had  been,  and  was  still,  mobilizing.  Austria  was 
taking  similar  steps,  and  Germany  was  forced  to 
warn  the  Entente  Powers  (Number  67)  that  her 
engagements  with  Austria  would  force  her  to  join 
Austria,  if  the  latter  was  attacked.  This  elicited  the 
reply  from  France  (Number  74)  that  Germany's 
engagements  with  Austria  were  no  closer  than  her 
own  were  with  Russia. 

Once  more  Germany  tried  to  clear  the  atmosphere, 
and,  on  July  28,  Baron  von  Schoen  presented  in  Paris 
a  straightforward  account  of  Germany's  position 
(Number  78).  Germany  had  not  known  Austria's 
ultimatum  but,  after  it  had  been  presented,  she  had 
approved  of  it,  because  Austria  "had  need  of  guar- 
antees against  Servian  proceedings."  The  French 
newspapers  were  in  error  when  they  stated  that  Ger- 
many was  urging  Austria  on.  It  was  impossible  to 
''pull  Austria  up  too  brusquely,"  and  Germany  only 
wanted  "to  act  with  France  for  the  maintenance  of 


The  French  Yellow  Book  255 

peace."  For  fear  of  displeasing  Russia,  France  was 
unwilling  to  accept  this  invitation. 

Germany,  therefore,  feeHng  more  and  more  con- 
vinced that  Sazonof  was  the  leading  spirit  in  a  hostile 
movement,  requested  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  "make 
pacific  recommendations  to  the  Russian  Government." 
(Number  80.)  Unfortunately,  also.  Sir  Edward  Grey 
declined  to  act,  because  '^he  would  be  much  embar- 
rassed" in  doing  so,  as  he  told  Paul  Cambon  (Num- 
ber 80). 

Having  failed  in  these  attempts,  von  Jagow  tried 
to  bring  Vienna  and  St.  Petersburg  into  direct  com- 
munication, and  "to  disengage  Germany."  (Num- 
ber 81.)  This  "frame  of  mind"  was  viewed  with 
favor  by  Russia  (Number  81),  who,  however,  actively 
continued  her  mobilizations.  And  then  the  thirtieth  of 
July  brought  the  news  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  had 
promised  his  support  to  France  and  Russia.  Person- 
ally, he  had  not  yet  announced  this  to  Germany,  but 
from  now  on,  Germany^s  chief  aim  was  to  secure  a 
reversion  of  Sir  Edward's  decision.  (See  also  the 
letter  from  the  Belgian  Minister  in  St.  Petersburg, 
Chapter  One.) 

So  far  as  Germany's  actions  up  to  July  thirtieth  are 
concerned,  the  French  Yellow  Book  has  made  it  per- 
fectly clear  that  she  did  her  share,  and  perhaps  even 
more  than  her  share,  to  bring  about  an  amicable  set- 
tlement of  the  difficulty.  Her  achievements  were  four : 
I,  she  induced  Austria  not  to  demand  a  judicial  par- 
ticipation in  the  trial  of  Servian  criminals;  2]  she 
secured  Austria's  willingness  to  have  Servia  yield  to 
the  advice  of  four  Powers,  rather  than  be  compelled 
to  yield  to  Austria ;  3,  she  succeeded  in  bringing  Aus- 


256  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tria  and  Russia  together  for  a  discussion  of  the  prob- 
lem; 4,  she  secured  the  promise  from  Austria  that 
Austria  would  not  "  aim  at  territorial  aggrandizement, 
and  that  she  would  respect  the  integrity  of  Servia." 
She  did  all  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  she  knew  of 
Russia's  mobilization,  and  was  much  concerned  over  it. 
(Number  67.) 

After  reading  the  Yellow  Book,  therefore,  nobody 
can  say  henceforth  that  Germany  had  done  nothing 
to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe.  She  did  more  than 
Russia,  infinitely  more  than  France,  who  did  nothing, 
and,  if  one  were  to  judge  by  the  Yellow  Book  alone, 
more  even  than  Sir  Edward  Grey,  although  it  was  he 
who  brought  about  a  condition  which  would  have 
solved  the  difficulties  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  objec- 
tion of  Sazonof. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  FRENCH   YELLOW   BOOK 

(Concluded) 

GERMANY'S  endeavors  to  preserve  the  peace 
after  July  30  fall  into  two  parts.  There  are,  in 
the  first  part,  the  telegrams  exchanged  between  the 
German  Emperor  and  the  Czar,  and  between  the  Em- 
peror and  King  George;  and,  in  the  second  part,  the 
steps  taken  by  the  German  Foreign  Office,  as  they 
appear  from  the  despatches  of  the  Yellow  Book. 
Despatches  Numbers  104  and  120,  together  with  the 
British  Blue  Book,  Numbers  121  and  123,  prove  that 
the  Chancellor  and  von  Jagow,  as  well  as  the  Em- 
peror, were  unremitting  in  their  labors  to  bring  Aus- 
tria and  Russia  together  again  after  the  pourparlers 
had  been  interrupted  for  a  while.  They  succeeded 
in  doing  this,  in  spite  of  Russia's  public  announce- 
ment of  partial  mobilization  (Number  91).  Ger- 
many's request  that  Russia  cease  mobilizing  (Num- 
ber 104)  was  ignored,  whereupon  the  German  general 
staff  urged  the  Emperor  to  order  mobilization  in 
Germany  (Number  105,  July  30).  But,  although 
neither  England  (Number  108)  nor  France  (Number 
loi)  denied  that  they  were  taking  ''military  steps," 
viz.,  mobilizing,  Germany  did  not  order  Kriegsgefahr- 
zustand  until  July  31,  after  Russia  had  given  orders 
for  complete  mobilization,  both  on  her  German  and 
Austrian  frontiers.    A  request  that  Russia  demobilize 

257 


258  Germany's  Point  of  View 

was  ignored,  whereupon  Germany  mobilized,  as  of 
August  2  (Number  128,  August  i). 

It  was  not  known  before  the  publication  of  the 
Yellow  Book  that  not  only  Russia  was  fully  mobiliz- 
ing, but  that  also  England  and  France  had  begun  to 
take  "military  steps''  several  days  before  Germany 
ordered  the  mobilization  of  her  forces.  Under  exist- 
ing European  conditions,  it  was  impossible  to  avoid 
war  when  once  the  several  countries  were  fully  mobil- 
ized. When  this  had  happened  it  became  of  second- 
ary importance  where  the  first  blow  should  be  struck, 
and  by  whom.  Since  this  is  a  fact,  which  is,  even 
today,  admitted  by  all  people  familiar  with  Europe, 
the  Yellow  Book  has  practically  proved  that  Germany 
did  not  begin  the  war;  for,  on  the  strength  of  the 
French  documents,  it  is  seen  that  Germany  was  forced 
to  mobilize,  by  the  mobilization  of  her  three  prospect- 
ive opponents.  The  despatch,  moreover,  quoted  above 
(Number  loi)  proves  that  the  many  messages  which 
speak  of  an  earlier  German  mobilization  are  included 
in  the  Yellow  Book  for  the  purpose  of  misleading  the 
people.  The  French  premier  himself  did  not  believe 
them,  for  he  would  not  have  asked  Sazonof  to  avoid 
any  public  step  which  could  offer  Germany  an  excuse 
for  partial  or  complete  mobilization,  if  he  had  believed 
that  such  mobilization  had  already  taken  place  in 
Germany. 

People  unfamiliar  with  such  matters  —  and  most  of 
us  were  so  before  the  war  began  —  have  denied  Ger- 
many's claim  that  her  declaration  of  war  on  Russia  was 
defensive,  because  Russia  had  given  orders  of  total 
mobilization,  and  was  aggressive.  They  should  read 
the  remarks  on  this  subject,  uttered  before  the  war, 


The  French  Yellow  Book  259 

by  the  President  of  the  American  Society  of  Inter- 
national Law,  Senator  EHhu  Root  (quoted  in  the  July, 
1914,  number  of  the  American  Journal  of  Interna- 
tional Law)  : 

It  is  well  understood  that  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
self-protection  may  and  frequently  does  extend  in  its 
effects  beyond  the  limits  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
the  state  exercising  it.  The  strongest  example  probably 
would  be  the  mobilization  of  an  army  of  another  Power 
immediately  across  the  frontier.  Every  act  done  by  the 
other  Power  may  be  within  its  own  territory.  Yet  the 
country  threatened  by  the  state  of  facts  is  justified  in 
protecting  itself  by  immediate  war. 

If,  then,  Germany  exerted  herself  in  the  first  place 
to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe,  and  proceeded  to 
mobilization  only  when  the  mobilization  of  her  neigh- 
bors compelled  her  to  do  so,  what  becomes  of  the 
charge  implied  in  the  British  Blue  Book,  that  she  is  to 
blame  for  the  war?  Does  the  French  Yellow  Book 
perchance  throw  new  light  also  on  the  position  of  the 
British  Government?    It  certainly  does. 

England's  position  appears  in  an  entirely  new  light 
in  the  Yellow  Book,  and  several  assertions  are  made 
there  which  contradict  the  official  statements  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey.  On  July  24  (Number  32),  Paul  Cam- 
bon,  writing  from  London,  gives  three  reasons  why 
the  German  ambassador  had  returned  to  London  three 
weeks  before  in  a  pessimistic  frame  of  mind,  one  of 
which  is  the  news  of  a  naval  understanding  between 
England  and  Russia.  The  existence  of  such  an  under- 
standing is  not  denied  by  Cambon,  as  it  undoubtedly 
would  have  been  if  no  naval  arrangements  had  been 
made.  The  general  terms  of  this  understanding  were 
given  in  the  Russian  press,  and  were  published  in 


26o  Germany's  Point  of  View 

translation  in  the  Boston  Transcript  of  November  4, 
1914.  (See  Chapter  Four.)  The  actual  wording  of 
the  document  is  unknown.  In  Russia,  people  believed 
it  to  be  such  that  it  bound  England  to  render  assistance 
to  Russia  by  naval  operations  in  the  case  of  a  Russo- 
German  war.  It  is  also  very  significant  that  a  news 
item  in  some  American  papers  (see  American  Review 
of  Reviews,  July,  1914)  referred  to  the  signing  of  such 
a  naval  understanding  between  Russia  and  England 
several  days  before  the  murder  at  Serajevo.  The 
first  official  reference,  however,  to  this  naval  under- 
standing is  contained  in  the  French  Yellow  Book, 
Hereafter,  Sir  Edward  Grey  will  be  unable  to  content 
himself  with  a  general  denial,  as  he  did  in  the  House 
of  Commons  on  June  12,  19 14,  when  he  was  asked  to 
explain  the  persistent  rumors  concerning  it.  He  will 
also  be  forced  to  publish  the  British  ambassador's 
report  as  to  what  transpired  in  the  secret  debate  of 
the  Duma,  May,  1914,  when  the  relations  between 
Great  Britain  and  Russia  were  discussed.  Until  now 
he  has  declined  to  do  so. 

People  who  do  not  know  the  remarkable  confidence  * 
Sir  Edward  Grey  was  able  to  inspire  in  some  quarters, 
will  be  tempted  to  condemn  him  as  tricky  and  dis- 

*When  this  was  written,  the  author  was  honestly  desirous 
of  reconciling  the  discrepancies  between  the  British  Blue 
Book  and  the  French  Yellow  Book  with  the  assumption  that 
Sir  Edward  Grey  was  a  man  of  honor  and  wished  peace. 
Continued  studies  along  these  lines  have,  however,  convinced 
the  author  that  such  an  assumption  is  untenable.  The  dis- 
crepancies are  too  many,  and  their  dishonest  purport  too 
apparent.  The  result  of  these  further  studies  was  presented 
by  the  author  in  an  address  before  the  German  University 
League  in  New  York  on  April  24,  191 5,  and  have  been 
printed  as  chapters  xxxi  and  xxxn  of  this  book.  See  also 
The  European  War  of  1914,  by  Professor  John  W.  Burgess. 
A.  C.  McClurg  &  Co. 


The  French  Yellow  Book  261 

honest,  because  the  reports  of  what  he  prints  as  having 
said  to  the  German  ambassador  rarely  tally  with  what 
he  told  Paul  Cambon  he  had  said.  There  is,  how- 
ever, another  explanation  which  may  hit  the  truth. 
Sir  Edward  was  desirous  of  reconciling  France  and 
Germany,  and,  therefore,  wished  both  to  look  upon 
him  as  their  friend.  Under  such  circumstances,  with 
the  peace  of  Europe  as  the  great  stake  before  him, 
he  talked  now  to  one,  now  to  the  other,  always  guided, 
his  friends  believed,  by  the  desire  to  keep  Germany 
from  acting,  by  making  her  feel  that  England  was 
not  bound  to  take  sides,  and  to  keep  France  satisfied 
in  her  belief  that  he  had  not  gone  back  on  his  word 
to  her. 

If  Sir  Edward  had  not  been  trusted,  neither  the 
supposed  naval  agreement  with  Russia,  nor  his  letter 
to  Paul  Cambon  of  November,  1912,  would  have 
bound  him  or  his  country  in  any  way.  But  because 
he  was  believed  to  be  a  man  of  honor,  France  knew 
that  he  would  find  a  way  of  redeeming  his  word,  if 
she  succeeded  in  convincing  him  that  France  was  in 
danger. 

At  first  Sir  Edward  Grey  may  have  worked  hard  for 
the  maintenance  of  peace,  and  brought  about  (as  said 
above)  the  conditions  under  which  an  amicable  settle- 
ment would  have  been  possible,  if  Sazonof  had  not  ob- 
jected. After  the  failure  of  this  plan  and  under  the 
constant  prodding  of  France  he  apparently  realized 
that  war  was  inevitable,  that  his  understandings  — 
with  France  and  Russia  —  would  force  him  to  shape 
public  opinion  in  a  way  which  would  enable  him  to 
redeem  his  word,  in  short  that  he  was  committed  to 
war.     His  only  hope  was  to  induce  Germany  and 


262  Germany's  Point  of   View 

Austria  to  yield  every  point,  since  Russia  was 
adamant.  He  then  sent  this  impassioned  appeal  to 
Berlin : 

If  the  peace  of  Europe  can  be  preserved  and  the  present 
crisis  safely  passed,  my  own  endeavor  will  be  to  promote 
some  arrangement  to  which  Germany  could  be  a  party  by 
which  she  could  be  assured  that  no  aggressive  or  hostile 
policy  would  be  pursued  against  her  or  her  allies  by  France, 
Russia,  and  ourselves  jointly  or  separately.  I  have  desired 
this  and  worked  for  it  as  far  as  I  could  through  the  last 
Balkan  crisis,  and  Germany  having  a  corresponding  object, 
our  relations  sensibly  improved.  The  idea  had  hitherto 
been  too  Utopian  to  form  the  subject  of  definite  proposals, 
but  if  this  present  crisis,  so  much  more  acute  than  any  that 
Europe  has  gone  through  for  generations,  be  safely  passed, 
I  am  hopeful  that  the  relief  and  reaction  which  will  follow 
may  make  possible  some  more  definite  rapprochement  be- 
tween the  Powers  than  has  been  possible  hitherto. 
(British  Blue  Book  Number  loi.) 

This  appeal  failed.  Nothing  but  absolute  faith,  not 
only  in  the  honesty  of  the  man  who  made  it,  but  also 
in  his  ability  to  carry  it  out,  could  have  induced  Ger- 
many to  accept  Sir  Edward's  offer.  Can  Germany 
be  blamed?  The  very  promise  that  in  the  future 
*'  Germany  could  be  assured  that  no  aggressive  or  hos- 
tile policy  were  to  be  pursued  against  her"  implies 
that  heretofore  she  could  not  have  felt  sure  of  this. 

When  even  this  last  appeal  failed.  Sir  Edward  was 
faced  by  a  still  greater  problem,  how  to  induce  the 
British  cabinet,  and  next  the  country  and  Parliament, 
to  help  him  redeem  his  word.  On  this  score  the  Yel- 
low Book  offers  abundant  evidence.  It  is  here  sum- 
marized without  further  comment.  Circumstances 
were  too  strong  for  Sir  Edward  Grey.  Paul  Cambon 
was  the  Mephisto  and  Sazonof  the  stage  director. 

So  far  as  Great  Britain  was  concerned,  the  following 


The  French  Yellow  Book  263 

had  been,  before  the  pubHcation  of  the  French  docu- 
ments, the  known  order  of  events: 

August  J.  Germany's  request  that  England  formu- 
late conditions  under  which  she  would  remain  neutral ; 
Britain's  refusal,  because  Sir  Edward  said,  "  we  must 
keep  our  hands  free." 

August  2.  In  the  afternoon,  assurances  of  British 
support  in  case  of  war  given  to  France,  and  not  made 
contingent  on  any  infringement  of  Belgian  neutrality. 
This  official  promise  was  first  made  public  in  Parlia- 
ment August  3. 

August  J.  Sir  Edward  Grey's  great  speech  in  Par- 
liament. 

Turning  now  to  the  Yellow  Book,  Number  106,  July 
31,  and  reading  Paul  Cambon's  report  of  Sir  Edward 
Grey's  statement  to  him,  one  finds  as  follows : 

1.  The  British  cabinet,  in  meeting,  have  voted  that 
as  yet,  they  cannot  guarantee  that  they  will  intervene. 

2.  Personally,  however.  Sir  Edward  Grey  promises 
intervention,  for  he  tells  Cambon  that  he  told  Germany 
that  "if  France  is  involved  England  will  be  dragged 
in." 

3.  Sir  Edward,  therefore,  gave  personal  assurances 
at  variance  with  the  decisions  of  the  cabinet. 

4.  The  question  of  securing  guarantees  for  Bel- 
gium is  now  broached  for  the  first  time. 

5.  Cambon's  appeal,  "will  you  wait  until  we  are 
invaded  or  repeat  the  mistake  of  Europe  of  1870?" 

6.  The  under  secretary  of  state's  confidential  assur- 
ance that  Sir  Edward  would  bring  the  matter  before 
the  cabinet  again  on  the  next  day. 


264  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  next  day  was  August  i.  The  Cabinet  met 
again,  but  again  (Number  126)  no  intervention  in 
favor  of  France  was  voted.  Cambon  goes  on  reporting 
as  follows: 

1.  Sir  Edward  has  refused  Germany's  request  to 
promise  neutrality. 

2.  Germany's  reply  concerning  Belgium  is  unsatis- 
factory. 

3.  Sir  Edward  makes  his  personal  promises  to  Cam- 
bon that  tomorrow  he  will  propose  to  the  Cabinet  — 

(a)  That  England  will  not  permit  the  violation  of 
the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 

(b)  Since  the  English  squadrons  are  mobilized,  etc. 
[Then  followed  the  guarantee  of  intervention  men- 
tioned by  Sir  Edward  in  ParHament.] 

This  was  on  August  i,  and  that  means  that  Sir 
Edward  renewed  his  personal  promise  of  support  to 
Cambon,  in  spite  of  a  vote  of  the  Cabinet  to  the  con- 
trary, and  that  he  gave  his  assurance  that  he  would 
again  ask  the  Cabinet  to  ratify  it,  on  the  very  day 
on  which  he  told  Germany  that  he  could  formulate 
no  conditions  under  which  England  would  remain 
neutral,  because  England  had  to  "keep  her  hands 
free." 

While  the  Yellow  Book  thus  casts  very  serious  as- 
persions on  Sir  Edward  Grey  and  seems  to  justify  all 
the  bitterness  which  Germany  has  felt,  it  completely 
exonerates  the  British  Cabinet  and  the  British  people. 
Germany  has  felt  that  the  Belgian  question  was  merely 
a  pretext.  So  it  was  for  Sir  Edward  Grey.  For  the 
Cabinet,  however,  it  was  the  deciding  factor.  Twice, 
on  July  31,  and  again  on  August  i,  the  Cabinet  refused 


The  French  Yellow  Book  265 

to  promise  their  armed  support  to  France.  They  did 
so  in  the  face  of  the  undoubtedly  strong  pressure  of 
Sir  Edward  Grey  and  Mr.  Churchill,  who,  without 
authority,  had  ordered  the  mobilization  of  the  fleet 
on  July  24  (Number  66).  Would  the  Cabinet  have 
yielded  if  Germany's  promise  not  to  invade  Belgium 
{Blue  Book  No.  123)  had  been  reported  to  it?  If  it 
had  not  yielded,  Sir  Edward  Grey  would  have  been 
obliged  to  resign.  There  was  no  alternative.  But 
would  Great  Britain  have  been  willing  to  lose  at  that 
most  critical  time  the  services  of  a  man  whom  the 
people  at  large  considered  exceptionally  capable  and 
upright,  however  severely  some  individuals  had  criti- 
cized *  his  methods  ? 

The  result  of  this  remarkable  dilemma  was  that 
Germany  went  through  Belgium  because  she  knew 
that  England  would  go  to  war,  thus  piling  up  the  odds 
against  her  to  a  terrifying  extent.  And  England  went 
to  war  against  Germany  to  prevent  what  only  the 
certainty  of  her  going  to  war  made  it  necessary  for 
Germany  to  do. 

The  man  who  brought  this  to  pass  was  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  not  necessarily  because  he  was  tricky,  but  be- 
cause foreign  diplomats  trusted  him.  His  mere  word, 
his  personal  letter  to  the  French  ambassador,  a  mili- 
tary conversation  entered  into  between  British  and  for- 
eign general  staffs  under  his  direction  —  these  were 
the  ties  that  fettered  his  country,  because  they  were 
incautiously  spun  by  a  man  who  had  the  reputation) 
of  being  honest.    They  fettered  England,  in  fact,  far 

*For  a  severe  arraignment  see  G.  H.  Perris,  Our  Foreign 
Policy  and  Sir  Edward  Grey's  Failure,  London,  1912,  and 
the  chapter  on  World  Policies  in  Germany  and  the  German 
Emperor,  by  the  same  author. 


266  Germany's  Point  of  View 

more  firmly  than  treaties  of  doubtful  phraseology 
could  have  done. 

If  Sir  Edward  Grey  should  really  be  innocent,  pity, 
rather  than  scorn,  should  be  offered  him.  When  he 
reviews  the  whole  case  in  the  light  of  the  French  Yel- 
low Books  and  sees  what  through  those  nerve-wrecking 
days  Paul  Cambon,  by  his  many  false  and  exaggerated 
reports,  tried  to  keep  from  him,  that  Germany  was  hon- 
estly anxious  for  peace,  and  had  been  eagerly  working 
for  it;  when  he  sees  that  France  had  done  absolutely 
nothing,  and  that  Russia  had  never  wavered  from  her 
determination  to  force  a  war  unless  Austria  yielded 
every  point,*  he  may  well  ask  himself:  Were  these 
people  worth  the  sacrifice  of  England?  Would  it  not 
have  been  better  to  make  a  clean  breast  of  it,  to  in- 
sist upon  the  Cabinet's  refusing  to  redeem  his  prom- 
ises, and  to  retire  rather  than  redeem  his  word  under 
such  conditions? 

But,  why  were  Russia  and  France  so  determined  to 
force  a  war  at  this  time,  when  it  is  well  known  that 
neither  was  as  well  prepared  as  both  expected  to  be 
two  years  hence?  Because  this  was  probably  the  last 
time  they  could  count  on  the  support  of  England.  As 
Sir  Edward  Grey  said  in  his  final  offer  to  Germany, 
Germany  and  England,  separated  by  mutual  jealousy 
for  many  years,  were  nearing  a  rapprochement.  Three 
years  of  incessant  labor  by  the  German  chancellor  had 
not  been  in  vain,  the  absolute  humaneness  and  honesty 

*  It  is  often  said  that  Servia  agreed  to  all  of  Austria's  de- 
mands but  one.  This  is,  however,  very  erroneous,  although 
most  American  papers  have  innocently  repeated  this  false- 
hood. For  the  facts  in  the  case  see  the  Austrian  Red  Book, 
and  Austria-Hungary  and  the  War,  by  Ernest  Ludwig,  J.  S. 
Ogilvie   Publishing   Company,    1915. 


The  French  Yellow  Book  267 

of  von  Bethmann-HoUweg  had  begun  to  tell.  Lish- 
nowsky  in  London,  and  von  Schoen  in  Paris,  had  been 
sent  there,  not  because  they  are  great  diplomats,  which 
some  say  they  are  not,  but  because  they  were  singularly 
straightforward  men.  Nature  had  made  them  straight. 
In  Paris  no  success  had  been  scored.  In  London,  how- 
ever, the  feeling  that  Germany  really  wished  to  live 
in  peace  with  England,  had  begun  to  take  hold.  If  it 
had  not.  Sir  Edward  never  could  have  made  his  final 
oflfer,  quoted  above,  coupled  with  the  promise  that  in 
the  future  he  would  prevent  hostile  moves  against 
Germany.  Fortunately  for  France,  Germany's  experi- 
ence was  not  such  that  she  felt  justified  in  believing 
Sir  Edward's  unguaranteed  promise. 

As  for  the  English  people,  there  are  —  in  spite  of 
Bernard  Shaw  —  few  who  are  not  convinced  that  they 
are  fighting  Germany  for  the  sake  of  Belgium.  This 
can  be  acknowledged  without  in  the  least  detracting 
from  the  justice  of  the  case  of  Germany.  It  should  be 
acknowledged,  and  should  be  widely  spread,  for  noth- 
ing has  fanned  the  English  hatred  in  Germany  more 
than  the  erroneous  belief  that  the  devious  course  of 
Sir  Edward  had  been  that  of  the  British  people. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  should  the  Germans  abate 
their  hate  of  England  before  the  English  abate  their 
.  hate  of  Germany?  Because  God  has  laid  into  the 
German  character,  a  quality,  which  many  nations  lack. 
They  have  the  gift  of  perceiving  and  understanding 
and  liking  the  good  qualities  of  other  people.  Shakes- 
peare is  more  read  and  played  in  Germany  than  in 
England  and  America  together.  Emerson,  Royce,  and 
James  have  influenced  larger  numbers  of  German  than 
American  students.    English,  French,  Russian,  Italian, 


268  Germany's  Point  of  View 

and  other  foreign  books  are  more  frequently  read  in 
Germany  than  anywhere  else.  Let  the  Germans, 
therefore,  understand  that  not  even  the  British  Cabi- 
net voted  to  go  against  them  until  it  was  shown  that 
they  would  go  through  Belgium,  and  they  will  feel 
convinced  that  a  future  understanding  with  England 
is  not  impossible. 

The  French  Yellow  Book  may,  therefore,  achieve  a 
great  many  things,  although  it  explicitly  disproves 
the  one  thing  that  it  was  meant  to  show.  It  does  not 
exonerate  France,  unless  you  call  it  honor  to  follow 
blindly  in  the  tracks  of  a  big  ally.  But  it  does  exon- 
erate Germany  and  it  exonerates  the  British  Cabinet 
and  the  British  people.  The  present  war,  after  all,  is 
a  gigantic  struggle  between  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the 
Teutons,  because  these  two  peoples  believed  that  they 
could  no  longer  inhabit  the  earth  together.  The  French 
have  done  their  part  to  foster  this  erroneous  notion, 
and  the  Russians  have  been  willing  to  profit  by  it. 
Thanks,  therefore,  to  the  French,  who  in  their  Yellow 
Book,  have  shown  the  error  of  this  notion,  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  mutual  English-German  hatred  should 
not  cease,  for  the  Yellow  Book  has  proved  that  neith- 
er the  Germans  nor  the  English  people,  as  such,  are 
responsible  for  this  war. 


CHAPTER  XX 

GERMAN    SCIENTISTS  ON  THE  WAR 

A  BOSTON  scientist  sent  a  circular  letter  to  sev- 
eral German  colleagues  in  November,  19 14,  and 
when  he  had  received  their  replies  turned  the  entire 
correspondence  over  to  the  writer,  with  permission  to 
translate  and  publish  such  letters  as  he  wished.  Lack 
of  space  alone  prevents  the  publication  of  the  whole 
correspondence. 

The  circular  letter  was  dated  Boston,  November  13, 
1914,  and  read  in  part  as  follows : 

To  My  German  Scientific  Friends:  It  is  impossible 
for  anyone  in  Germany  to  appreciate  the  strange  attitude 
of  America  towards  Germany  in  this  great  war.  An 
analysis  of  the  situation  leads  me  to  think  that  it  is  in 
large  part  due  to  the  very  strong  belief  in  America  that 
Germany  committed  a  frightful  crime  in  violating  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium. 

Having  lived  in  Germany  for  one  year  as  a  student 
in  Heidelberg,  having  the  warmest  and  closest  personal 
friendly  relations  with  so  many  Germans  and  Austrians, 
it  is  to  me  obviously  impossible  to  divert  my  sympathy 
from  Germany  to  the  Allies  until  more  evidence  is  forth- 
coming. 

At  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  I  recognized,  as  I  think 
few  Americans  did,  that  the  information  we  received 
came  wholly  through  English  and  French  sources,  and 
hence  obviously  was  partisan. 

The  most  serious  criticism  of  all  is  what  appears  to 
have  been  a  frightful  destruction  of  a  neutral  nation, 
Belgium.  .  .  . 

I  have  personally  felt,  as  a  warm  friend  of  Germany, 
that  all  of  the  evidence  with  regard  to  the  German  claim 

269 


270  Germany's  Point  of  View 

that  the  violation  of  the  neutraHty  of  Belgium  was  justi- 
fiable should  be  given,  if  there  is  any  intention  to  convince 
Americans  that  the  ground  of  action  against  Belgium 
v^as  justifiable.  .  .  . 

The  follov^ing  reply  was  received  from  Dr.  Ad. 
Schmidt,  director  of  the  Medical  Clinic  in  Halle,  who 
made  a  visit  to  America  a  year  ago : 

My  Dear  Colleague :  The  greatest  mistake  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, we  are  convinced,  was  that  in  times  of  peace 
the  position  of  Germany  was  not  sufficiently  made  known 
in  foreign  countries.  This  mistake  was  so  great  that 
it  can  be  said  to  be  second  only  to  the  failures  of  our 
diplomacy.  Both,  however,  are  explained  by  that  quality 
of  the  German  character  which  is  expressed  in  the 
proverb,  "  Lies  have  short  legs,  truth  will  be  known." 
Relying  on  the  justice  of  his  cause  and  on  his  achieve- 
ments, the  German  rejects  with  disdain  the  obligation  to 
fight  with  words  against  the  calumnies  of  his  opponents. 
Long  before  the  war  we  should  have  taken  care  to  have 
the  world  know  that  definite  agreements  existed  between 
France,  England  and  Belgium,  which  would  make  it  im- 
possible for  the  latter  country  to  maintain  its  neutrality. 
Since  we  did  not  do  this,  the  publication  of  these  agree- 
ments, even  though  they  have  been  strengthened  by  the 
discovery  of  some  of  the  original  documents,  give  the 
impression  of  a  belated  excuse. 

There  is  not  a  man  in  Germany  who  does  not  charge 
England  with  being  the  ultimate  cause  of  this  war.  With- 
out definite  assurances  of  England,  neither  France  nor 
Russia  would  have  dared  to  begin  the  war.  If  one  should 
wish  to  make  another  country  morally  responsible  for  the 
war,  then  this  country  is  Belgium,  which  was  not  willing 
to  defend  its  neutrality  against  France  as  Switzerland  has 
done.  You  understand  that  I  am  speaking  of  moral  re- 
sponsibilities, for  it  is  perfectly  superfluous  to  discuss  the 
question  who  gave  the  final  impetus  to  the  war.  The 
powder  magazine  was  ready  and  the  least  event  capable 
of  producing  a  spark  had  to  result  in  an  explosion. 

We  had  all  felt  that  we  should  be  obliged  to  fight  once 
more  against  France,  but  among  all  educated  people  there 
is  today  only  one   feeling,   namely  of  exceeding  sorrow 


German  Scientists  on  the  War  271 

for  the  French  in  their  infatuation.  We  do  not  hate  them, 
nor  do  we  hate  the  Belgians,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
we  should  have  given  to  the  latter  every  possible  satis- 
faction for  marching  through  their  country.  But  then 
there  came  the  detestable  horrors  of  the  franc-tireurs, 
who  were  much  worse  th^n  the  public  has  ever  known. 
Could  our  officers  and  soldiers  be  expected  to  suffer  them 
without  the  least  retaliation?  That  we  destroyed  nothing 
from  the  mere  lust  of  destroying  is  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  fact  that  Brussels,  Ghent,  Liege  and  other  cities  have 
suffered  no  harm  whatsoever,  and  even  in  Louvain,  the 
cathedral  has  been  saved  because  the  German  soldiers 
themselves  worked  hard  to  keep  it  from  destruction. 

It  was  the  same  with  Rheims.  I  have  just  read  a 
letter  from  an  army  chaplain  who  was  before  Rheims  and 
who  writes  that  strict  orders  had  been  given  not  to  bom- 
bard the  cathedral,  until  it  appeared  that  the  French, 
knowing  that  this  would  be  our  course,  had  established  a 
permanent  post  of  observation  on  one  of  the  towers  of 
the  cathedral  and  drawn  up  their  batteries  in  front  of 
the  cathedral.  Even  then,  four  days  elapsed  before  we 
finally  felt  obliged  to  direct  the  fire  against  the  church. 
It  was  an  absolute  necessity  and  the  proverb  ''Not  kennt 
kein  Gehof*  has  never  been  so  true  as  in  this  war,  on 
the  result  of  which  our  whole  existence  depends.  Every- 
body in  Germany  knows  instinctively  that  we  should  cease 
for  centuries  to  be  a  state  of  civilizing  power  and  world 
influence  if  our  foes  should  succeed  in  striking  us  to 
the  ground,  and  these  foes  are  almost  the  whole  world. 
This  explains  the  grim  determination  of  every  soldier, 
of  every  single  German,  to  fight  to  the  last  drop  of  Ger- 
man blood. 

Our  enemies  are  waging  against  us  a  war  of  destruc- 
tion, a  war  of  life  and  death,  and  not  a  sporting  war 
such  as  America  carried  on  against  the  Cubans  and 
Spaniards. 

Read  the  enclosed  news  item,  and  will  you  still  expect 
us  to  spare  our  enemies  and  their  monuments?  We  shall 
do  so  nevertheless,  for  that  is  the  German  character,  but 
only  so  long  as  it  can  be  done  without  jeopardizing  our 
safety. 

Let  me  tell  you  just  one  of  my  experiences.  It  speaks 
volumes.  Among  the  first  wounded  that  came  to  my  hos- 
pital was  a  married  landwehrmann  from  near  Halle,  who 


2']2  Germany's  Point  of  View 

had  a  wife  and  four  children  at  home.  He  had  been  in 
Belgium  in  the  thick  of  the  fight  with  the  franc-tireurSy 
and  had  been  obliged  to  see  Belgian  inhabitants  treacher- 
ously attack  our  soldiers  and  kill  them  while  they  slept. 
These  people  were  shot.  Of  one  family  only  a  little  four- 
year-old  child  was  left  and  this  child  the  old  landwehr- 
mann  had  taken  home  with  him  to  his  wife,  and  adopted 
the  little  waif.  Are  these  the  cruel  Germans,  the  bar- 
barians, the  beasts? 

Your  faithful  friend, 

(Signed)     Dr.  A.  D.  Schmidt. 

The  second  letter  was  written  by  Professor  Dr.  Al- 
brecht  Kossel,  professor  of  physiology  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Heidelberg,  winner  of  the  Nobel  prize  in  medi- 
cine about  three  years  ago.    It  reads : 

Heidelberg,  December  21,  1914. 

Dear  Friend:  You  have  given  me  great  pleasure  with 
your  letter  of  November  13.  We  do  not  want  anything 
except  justice  from  those  in  foreign  lands,  but  since  we 
have  not  received  this  it  is  especially  satisfying  to  hear 
your  friendly  and  cordial  views.  I  heartily  thank  you 
for  your  understanding  and  for  your  good  will. 

I  have  no  intention  of  blaming  those  Americans  whose 
sympathies  are  with  the  English,  for  I  know  that  these 
sympathies  are  very  largely  determined  by  blood  rela- 
tionship and  are  only  in  part  due  to  one-sided  or  erro- 
neous news.  I  also  know  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  over- 
come a  prejudice  which  has  been  formed  as  the  result 
of  first  impressions.  Owing  to  the  cutting  of  the  cables 
your  first  impressions  had  to  be  unfavorable  to  us. 

In  the  first  place,  America  will  not  appreciate  the 
extreme  danger  in  which  Germany  has  found  herself  for 
several  decades.  In  a  country  like  America,  whose  fron- 
tiers are  threatened  by  no  enemy,  no  one  can  imagine 
the  necessity  of  a  fight  of  desperation,  and  cannot  there- 
fore understand  the  actions  of  a  people  which  is  obliged  to 
fight  for  its  existence  because  it  is  attacked  by  an  over- 
powering combination  of  enemies,  some  of  whom  are  en- 
tirely barbarous. 

Our  American  critics  have  almost  invariably  based  their 


German  Scientists  on  the  War  273 

judgment  on  the  reports  and  documents  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  English  and  German  White  papers.  I  be- 
lieve you  are  right  in  explaining  their  respective  effect 
by  the  fact  that  the  English  know  better  than  the  Ger- 
mans how  the  American  mind  works  and  how  it  can  be 
influenced.  The  very  choice  of  the  documents  is  of  great 
importance.  Even  Shaw,  who  is  surely  no  friend  of  the 
Germans,  has  pointed  out  that  the  omission  from  the 
official  English  Blue  Book  of  the  dignified  and  impressive 
telegrams  of  the  German  Emperor  to  the  Czar  of  Russia 
was,  to  say  the  least,  not  chivalrous.  Those  documents, 
however,  which  would  have  influenced  the  judgment  of 
the  American  people  most  definitely  were  not  published 
by  England.  I  mean  the  strategic  arrangements  between 
England  and  Belgium.  Only  a  most  fortunate  accident 
has  made  it  possible  to  luring  fragments  of  these  arrange- 
ments to  the  notice  of  the  public. 

The  Americans,  it  seems  to  me,  are  charging  our 
country  with  two  things :  Our  starting  the  world  war 
and  our  march  through  Belgium.  And  yet  it  is  in- 
credible that  our  Government  should  have  urged  us  into 
a  war  which  could  bring  us  no  advantages,  but  could 
only  result  in  losses  and  untold  dangers  to  our  existence 
and  the  civilization  of  Germany ! 

The  description  of  how  the  war  began  would  fill  a 
book.  Everybody  knows  that  Russia  was  yearning  for 
the  possession  of  Constantinople;  that  her  way  to  Con- 
stantinople would  have  to  go  through  Vienna,  and  that 
the  whole  of  Russia's  policy  aimed  at  undermining  Austria 
with  the  assistance  of  Servia.  Russia  intended  to  deprive 
Austria  of  an  access  to  the  sea  and  thus  to  throttle  her. 
Our  fate,  however,  was  identical  with  that  of  Austria. 

Russia  had  begun  her  mobilization  in  the  spring,*  as  is 
proved  by  the  appearance  of  Asiatic  army  corps  on  our 
frontier  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  war,  while  it  is 
known  that  their  transportation  must  have  consumed 
months.  There  are  also  other  infallible  signs  to  the  same 
effect,  for  instance  the  tone  of  the  official  Russian  organ 
(Ruski  invalid),  on  the  occasion  of  the  visit  of  the  French 
president.     Russia's  firm  determination  to  commence  the 

*In  substantiation  of  this  assertion  see  the  files  of  the 
American  press  during  the  Spring  months  of  1914,  and  espe- 
cially the  American  Review  of  Reviews  from  April  to  July, 
1914. 


274  Germany's  Point  of  View 

war  could  not  be  influenced  even  by  the  peaceful  en- 
deavors of  the  German  Emperor,  especially  since  the  Eng- 
lish ambassador  in  St.  Petersburg  exerted  his  influence 
to  the  extent  that  Russia's  proposals  to  Austria  should  be 
made  even  less  acceptable*  than  they  had  been  at  first. 
Our  enemies  had  placed  the  noose  around  our  neck.  We 
had  to  tear  it  before  they  pulled  it  taut. 

When  war  between  Germany  and  Austria  on  the  one 
hand  and  Russia  and  France  on  the  other  had  been  de- 
clared, our  position  regarding  Belgium  began  to  be  dif- 
ficult. The  strength  of  the  Belgian  fortresses  was  di- 
rected against  us.  We  knew  that  French  officers  were 
in  these  fortresses  and  that  Belgium  had  permitted 
French  airmen  to  fly  across  her  territory.  A  fairly  large 
number  of  French  officers  and  men,  moreover,  who  had 
passed  through  Belgium  in  automobiles  in  order  to  enter 
Germany,  were  captured  on  the  German-Belgium  frontier. 

The  English  Government  in  an  interview  with  the  Ger- 
man ambassador  had  refused  to  formulate  conditions 
under  which  England  would  remain  neutral.  The  Eng- 
lish Government  was  hostile  to  us  and  its  participation 
in  the  war  seemed  to  be  only  a  question  of  time. 

Those  who  disapprove  of  our  entrance  into  Belgium 
demand  that  we  should  have  begun  our  war  against 
France  under  most  threatening  conditions,  with  two 
enemies  in  our  rear,  Belgium  and  England.  The  docu- 
ments which  have  been  found  prove  what  would  have 
happened  if  we  had  done  this.  They  show  that  Belgium 
had  made  arrangements  with  one  of  the  participants  of 
the  Triple  Entente,  with  England,  to  prepare  for  a  war 
against  us.  If  we  should  have  left  our  rear  toward  Bel- 
gium unprotected  we  should  have  been  at  the  mercy  of 
England,  who  could  have  fallen  into  our  rear  at  any 
moment  she  chose  to  go  through  Belgium,  and  there  is 
no  doubtf  that  she  would  have  done  this.     Under  such 


*  See  French  Yellow  Book,  Numbers  103  and  113. 

tin  substantiation  of  this  assertion  see  Lord  Roberts'  decla- 
ration of  August,  1913,  quoted  in  The  Fatherland,  March  17, 
1915,  that  in  August,  191 1,  the  British  expeditionary  force 
was  held  "in  readiness  instantly  to  embark  for  Flanders  to 
do  its  share  in  maintaining  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe." 
Lord  Roberts  does  not  make  the  invasion  of  Belgium  de- 
pendent on  a  previous  infringement  of  Belgian  "neutrality" 
by  Germany. 


German  Scientists  on  the  War  275 

conditions  the  fate  of  Germany  would  have  been  sealed. 
By  this  agreement  with  England  Belgium  had  surrendered 
its  neutral  position  and  had  made  all  the  acts  of  neutrality 
a  scrap  of  paper.  This  is  our  view  of  the  wrong  we 
have  done. 

It  is  evident  that  the  responsibility  for  the  misfortune 
of  Belgium  does  not  rest  with  the  people  but  with  their 
Government,  who  had  taken  part  in  the  conspiracy  against 
us;  but  he  who  makes  a  fortress  of  his  house  by  shooting 
from  its  windows  must  not  be  astonished  if  his  house  is 
treated  like  a  fortress  and  is  drawn  into  the  whirlpool 
of  war. 

When  Germany  is  blamed  for  its  militarism  such  re^ 
proaches  appear  to  us  especially  unjust.  It  is  a  fact  that 
France  has  spent  more  money  for  her  army  in  comparison 
to  her  population  than  Germany,  and  that  Russia  has 
actually  spent  more  than  either.*  The  real  seat  of  Euro- 
pean militarism  is  England,  who  claims  control  of  the 
sea.  The  history  of  the  last  decades  has  proved  over  and 
over  again  that  the  militarism  of  England  aims  at  con- 
quests (Transvaal,  Egypt,  Persia,  and  Cyprus).  Ger- 
many has  been  sufficiently  taught  by  her  past  history  that 
it  is  necessary  for  her  to  be  prepared  against  her  neigh- 
bors. And  the  ruins  of  the  tower  of  the  Castle  of  Heidel- 
berg are  not  the  only  sign  of  the  fate  which  will  be  ours 
as  soon  as  we  renounce  the  protection  that  our  army  can 
give  us.  Germany's  militarism  is  defensive;  England's 
militarism  is  aggressive.  ^' 

The  time  when  our  neighbors  overran  and  despoiled 
our  unprotected  country  was  the  time  when  the  French 
stole  from  us  Strassburg.  As  a  child  I  often  doubted 
the  justice  of  the  order  of  things  in  this  world  because 
this  German  land,  the  seat  of  our  old  German  civiliza- 
tion, continued  to  be  in  the  hands  of  strangers,  and  this 
was  the  feeling  of  the  whole  of  Germany.  Did  we  commit 
an  act  of  injustice  when  we  took  back  what  had  been 
stolen  from  us  and  tried  to  secure  its  permanent  posses- 
sion by  fortifying  our   frontiers? 

The  papers  of  the  last  days  have  told  us  that  our 
enemies  are  now  using  the  monopoly  of  the  cable  com- 
munications which  they  possess   for  spreading  false  ac- 


*  See    the   chapter   on    ''Militarism"    in   the   author's    What 
Germany  Wants. 


276  Germany's  Point  of  View 

cusations  against  Germany  concerning  the  bombardment 
of  English  coast  towns.  They  claim  that  these  places 
were  unfortified.  This  is  incorrect.  Hartlepool  is  strongly 
fortified;  Scarborough  also  has  a  fort  and  Whitby  a 
coast  guard  and  signal  station.  The  fire  of  our  ships  was 
directed  only  against  this  station.  Compare  with  this 
what  has  happened  in  my  immediate  neighborhood:  An 
open  city,  situated  entirely  outside  the  sphere  of  war 
operations,  Freiburg,  has  been  hit  by  bombs  thrown  from 
flying  machines  of  the  Allies.  I  suppose  you  have  not 
read  in  your  papers  that  on  this  occasion  innocent  by- 
standers were  killed  and  others  were  wounded. 

But  it  is  not  my  intention  to  deal  with  the  actions  of 
our  enemies,  which  run  counter  to  the  conventions  of 
the  Hague  conference  and  humanity.  I  do  not  care  to 
condemn  the  Allies;  I  only  wish  to  explain  to  you  what 
we  have  done. 

Only  one  thing  more  I  wish  to  mention,  and  that  is 
that  as  the  result  of  English  interference  with  the  mail 
of  neutral  America,  your  earlier  letters  to  me  have  not 
reached  me. 

Your  faithful  friend, 

(Signed)    Dr.  Albrecht  Kossel. 

The  third  letter  was  written  by  Professor  Dr.  J.  E. 
Johansson,  director  of  the  Karolinska  Institute,  De- 
partment of  Physiology,  University  of  Stockholm,  and 
is  particularly  interesting  as  throwing  a  light  upon  what 
seems  to  be  debatable  ground,  namely,  the  attitude  of 
the  Swedes.  Unlike  the  other  letters  it  is  not  a  reply 
to  the  circular  note,  but  was  written  earlier.    It  reads : 

Stockholm,  November  8,   1914. 

Dear  Colleague:  Hearty  thanks  for  your  friendly 
greetings.  In  these  times  we  are  warmly  grateful  for 
words  from  our  friends  in  foreign  lands. 

We  are  not  yet  surrounded  but  every  day  our  relations 
with  the  outer  world  are  more  and  more  restricted.  We 
have  received  several  letters  from  Freiburg.  The  Ger- 
mans are  continuing  to  be  hopeful  and  to  develop  a 
strength  which  fills  us  with  admiration,  but  how  long  will 


German  Scientists  on  the  War  2yy 

they  be  able  to  withstand?  If  the  Germans  should  be 
beaten  we  are  afraid  that  our  turn  will  be  next.  An 
English  fleet  in  the  Baltic  will  be  very  disagreeable  for 
us.  We  are  continuing  our  work  in  the  laboratory  but 
our  young  men  are  being  called  to  the  colors  one  by  one, 
and  if  the  war  should  be  pushed  into  the  Baltic  then  we 
should  have  to  protect  our  coast.  What  the  end  will  be 
—  what's  the  use  of  troubling  one's  head  about  that  now? 
With  kind  regards,  yours, 

(Signed)     J.  E.  Johansson. 

The  last  letter  is  another  communication  from  Dr. 
A.  D.  Schmidt,  of  Halle,  and  reads : 

Halle,  December  17,  1914. 

My  Dear  Colleague:  So  far  as  I  can  see,  we  do  not 
claim  that  Belgium,  together  with  France  and  England, 
had  planned  an  invasion  of  Germany,  but  that  it  has  had 
for  a  long  while  definite  diplomatic  and  military  arrange- 
ments with  England  and  France  while  it  has  never  tried 
to  get  in  touch  with  Germany,  and  has  certainly  never 
considered  how  it  would  be  able  to  maintain  its  neutrality 
also  against  the  powers  of  the  West.  A  neutral  State, 
however,  it  seems  to  us,  must  do  one  of  two  things: 
Either  it  must  arm  itself  sufficiently  —  as  Switzerland  has 
done  —  to  protect  its  frontiers  against  the  invasion  of  any 
enemy,  or  it  must  not  make  any  martial  preparations  at 
all,  and  trust  that  the  great  Powers  which  have  guar- 
anteed its  neutrality  will  respect  it.  To  act  as  Belgium 
did,  evidently  under  the  strong  compulsion  of  the  entente 
Powers,  namely,  to  enter  into  definite  military  arrange- 
ments v/ith  one  side  only,  is  not  an  act  of  neutrality.  It 
is  hypocrisy.  It  is  taking  sides  secretly  and  that  is  much 
worse  than  taking  sides  openly.  In  this  connection  you 
may  be  interested  in  the  article  "  New  Proofs  of  Guilt " 
in  Number  586  of  the  Hallesche  Zeitimg  and  in  "  A  Neu- 
tral Judgment,"  in  Number  603  of  the  Tdgliche  Rundschau. 

I  was  especially  interested  in  your  view  of  the  German 
aims  when  the  war  began,  especially  your  belief  that 
Germany  hoped  to  be  able  to  extend  its  influence  in  the 
Balkans  by  restricting  the  war  to  Austria  and  Ser-via. 
I  can  assure  you  that  no  man  in  Germany  has  thought, 
or  is  even  today  thinking,  anything  of  the  kind.    Nobody 


278  Germany's  Point  of  View 

in  Germany,  and  least  of  all  the  German  chancellor,  has 
looked  for  conquests.  All  of  us  feel  that  this  is  exclusively 
a  defensive  war  in  which  our  existence  is  at  stake,  thanks 
to  the  policy  of  King  Edward  vii^  who  wished  to  place 
an  iron  ring  about  us.  This  accounts  for  our  unanimity, 
for  our  grim  determination,  for  our  enthusiasm  and  for 
the  readiness  everywhere  in  Germany  to  sacrifice  every- 
thing —  to  an  extent  even  which  greatly  exceeds  what  was 
done  in  1814.  And  from  this  point  of  view  the  war  will 
comprise,  however  it  may  result,  one  of  the  most  inspiring 
chapters  of  the  history  of  the  world.  I  can  grant  to  you 
only  this,  that  all  people  in  Germany  who  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  European  affairs,  were  agreed  that  it  was  our 
duty  to  assist  Austria  against  Russia.  Austria  is  the 
bulwark  of  Germanism  against  Slavism,  and  if  ever  there 
has  been  a  war  of  the  races  this  is  such  a  one. 

This,  however,  is  the  disgusting  part  of  the  whole 
affair  —  and  no  German  will  ever  forget  it  —  that  England, 
our  nearest  racial  relative,  took  the  side  of  the  Slavs  in 
this  war,  not  to  prevent  the  destruction  of  France  but 
to  get  rid  of  an  inconvenient  rival  in  the  markets  of  the 
world,  and  what  is  even  worse  than  this,  England  is 
calling  out  against  her  blood  relatives  not  only  her 
colonies  but  also  the  lower  races  of  the  world.*  I  fail 
to  understand  how  the  Americans,  who  are  endowed  with 
a  very  strong  sense  of  justice,  can  get  over  these  actions 
of  England.  We  have  always  seen  in  America  the  country 
which  was  to  bring  about  the  amalgamation  of  the  Eng- 
lish and  the  German  interests,  and  I  came  home  from 
my  visit  to  America  with  the  distinct  impression  that  your 
country  would  be  able  to  do  this,  but  now  the  war  may 
have  torn  a  cleft  also  in  your  magnificent  national  system 
and  may  have  rendered  this  amalgamation  illusory  for 
a  long  time  to  come.  This  at  least  is  the  painful  impres- 
sion which  I  have  gathered  from  your  letters  and  from 
those  of  other  American  friends. 

Let  this  be  enough  for  today.  All  educated  people  in 
Germany  regret  this  terrible  war  just  as  much  as  you 

*  Just  as  England  called  the  savage  Indians  to  her  assistance 
in  the  American  War  of  Independence,  and  set  a  price  on  the 
scalps  of  the  Americans.  See  B.  J.  Lossing  The  Pictorial 
Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,  pp.  159,  235,  and  239,  also 
"  German  Viewpoints,"  Boston  Transcript,  April  30  and  May 
5,  1915. 


German  Scientists  on  the  War  279 

do  and  are  hoping  with  you  that  it  may  soon  be  ended. 
Our  wishes  are  that  we  may  emerge  from  it  not  only 
with  honor  but  also  free  from  the  fetters  which  England 
wished  to  impose  upon  us  and  our  commerce  and  cultural 
development.  Let  me  assure  you  that  nobody  here  thinks 
of  extending  his  feelings  toward  England  to  include  also 
America.  On  the  contrary,  we  wish  to  keep  our  relations 
with  you  untarnished  in  spite  of  our  momentary  differ- 
ences of  opinion. 

Most  cordially  yours, 

(Signed)     Dr,  A.  D.  Schmidt. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   GERMAN    FOOD   SUPPLY 

WHEN  England  was  unable  in  the  South  African 
War  to  beat  the  Boers  man  to  man,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  established  rules  of  warfare,  she  had  recourse 
to  an  invention  of  her  own:  the  concentration  camps, 
in  which  30,000  women  and  children  died,  or,  as 
the  finer  type  of  Englishmen  used  to  say,  "  were  mur- 
dered," because  the  English  disregard  of  even  the 
ordinary  care  under  which  human  beings  can  live 
was  the  cause  of  their  death. 

The  great  success  which  Lord  Roberts  and  Lord 
Kitchener  had  with  this  novel  mode  of  warfare  in 
South  Africa  induced  the  British  Government  to  try 
it  on  a  bigger  scale  in  the  present  war,  and  to  make 
one  huge  concentration  camp  of  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria, in  which  to  starve  the  non-combatants,  women 
and/ children.  Unable  to  beat  the  German  and  Aus- 
trian soldiers,  whom  they  greatly  outnumber,  the 
Allies  hope  to  reduce  them  to  submission  when  famine 
stalks  through  the  country.  The  horrors  incident  to 
a  war  in  which  Gurkas,  Turkos,  and  cannibal  negroes, 
seventy  thousand  American  horses,  and  hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  American  munitions  of 
war  are  allied  on  the  side  of  England,  France,  and 
Russia  are  to  be  multiplied  a  thousand-fold  by  the 
thought  that  at  home  the  dear  ones  are  dying  of 
starvation. 

280 


The  German  Food  Supply  281 

If  Germany  had  planned  this  war,  she  would  have 
provided  for  such  a  contingency  by  filling  her  store- 
houses with  grain  and  meat  to  last  her  through  one 
or  even  more  years.  But  she  did  not  do  this,  and 
since  the  so-called  neutral  nations  have  been  unwilling 
to  force  England  to  abide  by  the  established  rule  that 
provisions  for  the  civil  population  of  a  belligerent  are 
to  pass  unhindered,  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  been  able 
to  bring  about  conditions  under  which  any  large 
industrial  State  like  Germany  might  be  expected  to 
starve. 

Will  Germany  starve?  This  was  the  question  of 
paramount  interest  during  the  winter  months  of  19 14- 
15.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  its  answer  may  determine 
the  victor  of  the  war.  For,  if  the  English  policy  seems 
likely  to  force  Germany  to  surrender  because  of  lack 
of  food,  the  Entente  will  be  able  to  survive  the  disap- 
pointments of  the  first  ten  months.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  appears  that  Germany  can  subsist  for  years 
without  the  importation  of  food,  then  the  conviction 
that  her  military  strength  is  irrefragable  may  induce 
either  Russia  or  France,  or  both,  to  look  with  favor  on 
any  proposal  which  relieves  them  of  a  bargain  in  which 
their  life  blood  is  spilled  to  maintain  England  in  the 
position  of  an  aristocrat  among  the  nations  —  one  who 
claims  not  only  superiority  but  also  supremacy  in  the 
world. 

The  importance  of  this  question,  therefore,  has  led 
to  much  speculation,  in  a  great  deal  of  which  the  wish 
has  been  father  to  the  thought.  Fortunately,  however, 
it  has  also  been  investigated  by  a  number  of  scientists 
in  a  perfectly  calm  spirit,  and  according  to  approved 
laboratory  methods.     Sixteen  men  and  women  joined 


282  Germany's  Point  of  View 

in  this  voluntary  investigation,  a  labor  of  love  for  the 
Fatherland.  They  numbered  among  them  not  only 
experts  in  science  and  practical  agriculture,  but  also 
authorities  on  the  distribution  of  food,  on  fertilizers, 
the  manufacture  of  beer,  and  alcohol,  starch,  etc.,  and 
the  German  industries  as  a  whole.  After  weeks  of 
exhaustive  study  they  published  their  conclusions  in 
a  large  pamphlet,  which  has  just  reached  America. 
[Die  Deutsch  V olkserndhrung  und  der  Englische  Aus- 
hungerungsplan,  The  Food  Supply  of  the  German 
People  and  the  English  Plan  of  Starving  Them,  pub- 
lished by  Paul  Eltzbacher,  with  Vieweg  and  Son,  in 
Braunschweig.] 

Starting  with  the  assumption  that  England's  wars 
are  preeminently  economic,  and  that  she  intends  to 
win  the  present  one  by  starving  her  opponents,  the 
following  quotation  is  given  from  the  London  maga- 
zine. The  Financier  (here  re-translated  from  the 
German)  : 

Germany  is  on  the  point  of  losing  for  ten  years  or  longer 
not  only  the  big  markets  of  Russia,  France,  and  Belgium, 
but  also  those  of  the  whole  English-speaking  race.  The 
German  foreign  trade  has  suddenly  ceased,  and  it  is  our 
duty  to  see  that  it  will  never  start  again.  What  Germany 
has  achieved  by  years  of  painstaking  labor  has  suddenly 
been  given  into  our  hands.  So  long  as  we  control  the 
routes  of  the  great  oceans,  and  if  we  improve  our  oppor- 
tunity, the  complaint  of  German  commercial  competition 
will  not  again  be  heard,  at  least  in  our  lifetime. 

The  British  Government,  in  an  endeavor  to  seize 

their  opportunity,  have  established  in  London  a  sample 

depot  of  German  wares,  with  a  list  where  the  goods 

are  sold,  at  what  cost,  and  in  what  quantities,  and 

with  suggestions  how  this  trade  can  be  diverted  to 

England. 


The  German  Food  Supply  283 

It  may  not  be  idle  to  state  here,  in  parenthesis,  that 
the  EngHsh  objections  to  an  American  ship-purchase 
bill  was  not  so  much  due  to  the  fear  that  it  might  inure 
to  the  benefit  of  Germany,  as  to  England's  unwill- 
ingness to  let  America  or  any  other  country  supply 
the  markets  from  which  Germany  has  been  tempo- 
rarily obliged  to  withdraw. 

The  German  scientists,  however,  have  drawn  from 
England's  action  merely  the  conclusion  that  Germany 
will  have  to  regard  itself  as  an  industrial  and  com- 
mercial unit,  which  is  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
world  for  the  time  being.  Austria-Hungary  is  in 
a  somewhat  better  condition,  because  it  is  less  densely 
populated,  and  because  it  can,  for  the  present  at  least, 
import  enough  food  from  Roumania  and  other  Balkan 
States.  Some  importations  from  the  Scandinavian 
countries,  and  later,  if  luck  favors  the  Turks,  also 
from  Egypt,  may  alleviate  the  needs  of  Germany. 
Both  these  sources  of  supply,  however,  are  uncertain, 
and  it  is  better  to  investigate  what  Germany  can  do 
alone,  if  she  should  be  compelled  to  rely  entirely 
on  her  own  resources. 

Nor  is  it  enough  to  figure  on  a  brief  war,  because 
England  has  always  shown  great  tenacity,  and  when 
the  odds  have  been  greatest  against  her,  as  in  the 
Napoleonic  and  the  Boer  wars,  has  exhibited  a  won- 
derful degree  of  endurance.  She  has  probably  never 
before  suffered  so  severely  as  at  present,  because 
Germany  was  her  best  customer,  and  for  some  of  her 
industries  she  can  find  no  substitutes  for  the  goods 
which  she  used  to  import  from  Germany.  Unable  to 
get,  by  fair  means,  the  German  dyestuffs,  without 
which  her  cloth  industry  is  languishing,  and  jealous 


284  Germany  s  Point  of  View 

of  seeing  this  trade  go  to  America,  she  has  declared 
that  she  will  confiscate  all  German  exports  to  America, 
her  excuse  being  that  she  wishes  to  retaliate  on  Ger- 
many. But  even  the  most  English  friendly  people  may 
be  expected  to  see  through  this  pretext. 

The  German  navy,  moreover,  has  disarranged  Eng- 
lish shipping  and  hushed  the  noise  of  the  machinery 
in  many  a  factory,  while  the  complete  absence  of  any 
freight  to  be  transshipped  to  Germany  has  thrown 
a  good  many  people  out  of  employment.  The  number 
of  the  recruits  to  this  army  of  the  unemployed  is 
greater  than  that  of  the  recruits  to  Kitchener's  army ; 
a  fact  which  adds  to  her  economic  difficulties,  and 
would  presage  an  early  peace  unless  she  felt  obliged 
to  go  on  playing,  or  lose  the  enormous  stakes  she 
made  when  she  entered  the  game. 

All  this  makes  it  incumbent  upon  Germany  to  fig- 
ure on  a  long  war,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that  the  best 
means  of  having  a  short  war  is  to  be  prepared  for  a 
long  one. 

In  preparing,  therefore,  for  an  economic  existence, 
in  spite  of  the  English  plans  of  starvation,  German 
economists  had  to  readjust  their  ideas.  As  long  as 
Germany  was  an  interested  member  of  the  economy 
of  the  world,  production  was  her  chief  aim.  As  soon 
as  England  tried  to  restrict  her  to  her  own  national 
resources,  consumption  had  to  become  her  chief  con- 
cern. Instead  of  asking,  as  formerly :  "  What  can  we 
produce  for  sale  in  the  best  markets  ? ''  Germany  has 
been  compelled  to  ask  today,  "What  do  we  need  in 
the  way  of  food,  clothing,  heat,  and  so  forth,  and  how 
can  we  satisfy  these  needs  ourselves?'' 

During  the  first  weeks  of  the  war  many  people  in 


The  German  Food  Supply  285 

the  German  industrial  centers  were  out  of  work,  while 
farmers,  on  the  other  hand,  were  often  without  help. 
Formerly  the  Government  would  have  tried  to  alleviate 
the  needs  of  the  unemployed  first ;  during  a  war  it  is 
more  important  to  supply  the  lack  of  help  in  the  coun- 
try; Ordinarily  no  investments  are  made  except  those 
which  promise  good  returns ;  at  present,  however,  any 
establishment  which  serves  to  increase  the  food  supply 
—  as,  for  instance,  communal  plants  for  the  drying  of 
potatoes  —  should  be  called  into  existence. 

While  Germany's  industrial  life  was  entwined  with 
that  of  the  world,  the  individual  enjoyed  the  greatest 
freedom,  and  was  encouraged  to  make  his  own  experi- 
ments. Under  altered  conditions  the  state  will  have 
to  assume  greater  responsibilities,  and  regulate  the 
national  consumption  in  the  interest  of  all  the  people. 
It  will  have  to  place  embargoes  on  the  export  of  any- 
thing needed,  or,  by  fixing  highest  or  lowest  prices, 
regulate  the  consumption  of  any  one  article.  The  suc- 
cess of  such  measures,  however,  will  depend  on  the 
response  of  the  people.  In  times  of  need  everybody 
must  become  somewhat  of  a  Socialist ! 

The  first  step  in  the  investigation  of  whether  Ger- 
many can  feed  her  seventy  million  people  without  out- 
side help  is  to  inquire  whether  any  markets  will  con- 
tinue to  be  at  her  disposal. 

From  Holland,  Germany  used  to  import  meat,  but- 
ter, cheese,  and  fish.  Holland,  however,  was  able  to 
export  meat  and  butter  only  because  she  imported 
millions  of  tons  of  food  for  her  cattle.  During  the 
war  her  imports  will  be  irregular  and  much  smaller,  a 
fact  which  will  show  in. a  decreased  exportation  of 
food  to  Germany. 


286  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  same  is  true  of  Denmark,  whose  exportation  of 
cattle  and  other  farm  products  is  dependent  on  an 
importation  of  approximately  one  million  tons  of  grain 
and  fodder.  When  this  importation  is  cut  off  by  the 
war  the  Danish  will  be  obliged  to  curtail  the  number 
of  their  cattle  and  milch  cows,  and  will  not  produce 
enough  to  supply  their  former  German  markets. 

Sweden  and  Norway  have  always  been  dependent 
on  the  importation  of  grain,  for  the  former  produces 
only  about  four-fifths  of  what  she  needs,  while  the 
latter  has  never  been  able  to  grow  more  grain  than  to 
supply  one-eighth  of  her  demand.  It  is  therefore 
impossible  to  look  to  either  of  these  countries  for 
anything  beyond  the  importation  of  fish. 

Switzerland  used  to  sell  to  Germany  some  cheese, 
but  since  her  dense  population  and  mountainous  soil 
renders  her  dependent  on  the  importation  of  grain  and 
often  even  of  fodder  she  will  need  every  ounce  of  her 
food  at  home.  Italy  has  rarely  had  to  sell  anything 
but  her  fruits,  for  her  demand  of  wheat  and  corn  has 
generally  exceeded  her  production  by  one  and  one-half 
million  tons. 

Roumania,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  grain  exporting 
country.  Unfortunately,  however,  both  the  Roumanian 
and  the  Hungarian  harvests  were  poor  last  year,  so 
that  Austria  will  doubtless  need  every  bit  of  grain 
that  Roumania  is  able  to  sell. 

If  Germany,  therefore,  were  dependent  on  the  im- 
portation of  grain,  she  could  receive  it  only  from 
across  the  ocean.  It  is,  however,  this  supply  which 
England  has  set  out  to  keep  from  her.  Since  not  only 
humanity  and  the  precedents  on  which  international 
law  is  based,  but  also  the  Declarations  of  Paris  and  of 


The  German  Food  Supply  287 

London  —  which  latter  England  signed  but  failed  to 
ratify  —  explicitly  demand  free  passage  for  the  food 
supply  of  all  civil  populations,  England's  first  step 
was  to  divert  the  foreign  shipments  of  grain  to  the 
neutral  countries  surrounding  Germany  and  to  force 
each  one  of  them  to  forbid  the  exportation  of  grain 
during  the  war.  Since  these  countries,  as  has  been 
seen,  are  dependent  on  foreign  grain,  they  had  to 
do  the  bidding  of  England,  who  had  it  in  her  power 
to  prevent  any  grain  from  reaching  them.  Having 
compelled  the  neutral  nations  of  Europe  to  lay  an 
embargo  on  the  exportation  of  grain,  which  could 
harm  nobody  but  Germany,  England  turned  her 
attention  to  the  United  States  in  an  endeavor  to 
reconcile  the  American  Government  to  the  use  of  her 
naval  power.  This  she  has  been  unable  to  do,  for 
President  Wilson  has  addressed  to  England  a  polite 
protest.  Since  Sir  Edward  Grey,  however,  felt  con- 
vinced that  there  was  no  punch  behind  it  and  that  the 
President  was  determined  not  to  decide  on  the  right  or 
wrong  of  any  question  connected  with  the  conduct  of 
the  war,  he  replied  to  the  American  note  in  a  courteous 
way;  but,  far  from  altering  his  course,  declared  his 
intention  of  treating  all  foodstuffs  as  contraband  of 
war. 

The  German  scientists  were  not  concerned  with  the 
question  whether  England  thereby  broke  the  tenets  of 
international  law.  The  mere  fact  that  this  action  de- 
prived Germany  of  her  last  possible  source  of  a  for- 
eign grain  supply  sufficed  to  prove  to  them  that  their 
calculations  had  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  ab- 
sence of  any  foreign  supply. 

The  reason,  however,  which  England  advanced  for 


288  Germany's  Point  of  View 

her  step  is  unusually  interesting.  She  claimed  that 
Germany  herself  had  made  food  contraband  of  war 
because  her  Government  had  seized  the  grain  supply 
of  the  country.  It  is  true  that  the  Government  had 
taken  charge  of  the  grain  to  administer  it  in  the  in- 
terest of  all  the  people.  For  the  time  being,  there- 
fore, private  ownership  had  been  superseded  by  public 
ownership  such  as  the  Socialists  advocate  everywhere. 
If  England's  contention  is  conceded  that  she  has  the 
right  to  starve  the  civil  population  of  Germany  be- 
cause they  have  introduced  government  ownership,  so 
far  as  grain  is  concerned,  then  no  socialistic  state,  if 
one  should  ever  be  established,  need  expect  anything 
but  a  war  of  starvation  at  the  hand  of  nations  fighting 
them  in  the  future. 

Germany's  home  production  also  will  be  consider- 
ably diminished.  There  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  sup- 
ply of  fish,  which,  in  1912-13  amounted  to  142,000 
tons  from  the  North  Sea,  and  to  37,000  tons  from  the 
Baltic.  In  both  seas  the  danger  from  mines  and  hos- 
tile fleets  will  diminish  the  annual  catches. 

Far  greater  losses,  however,  are  to  be  expected  in 
farm  products,  because  there  is  a  dearth  of  skilled 
labor  and  horses.  Many  horses  have  been  requisi- 
tioned for  the  war,  and  the  annual  importation  of 
about  140,000  horses  (largely  from  Russia)  will  be 
unavailable.  To  compensate  for  this  the  smaller  farms 
will  have  to  take  their  recourse  to  oxen,  and  the 
larger  establishments  to  motor  plows. 

The  most  serious  dearth,  however,  will  exist  in  fer- 
tilizers, and  it  is  their  scientific  use  which  has  raised 
German  agriculture  to  its  present  height.  Four  chem- 
icals are  needed:  potash,  lime,  phosphate  and  nitro- 


The  German  Food  Supply  289 

gen.  Germany  has  potash  and  lime  in  abundance,  but 
is  short  in  phosphates  and  nitrogen.  In  years  of  peace 
the  phosphates  used  in  the  German  fertiHzers  consist 
of  about  two  million  tons  of  thomasschlacke,  which 
is  a  by-product  of  the  iron  industry,  and  one  million 
tons  of  imported  phosphates.  During  the  war  the  by- 
products of  the  iron  industry  will  be  fewer  and  the 
importations  will  cease.  Belgium,  on  the  other  hand, 
may  be  able  to  supply  most  of  the  deficit. 

As  to  nitrogen,  Germany  used  to  fill  her  demand  of 
one  million  tons  in  about  equal  parts  by  importing 
from  Chile  the  so-called  Chile  saltpetre,  and  making 
use  of  a  by-product  of  the  home  manufacture  of  coke. 
The  German  farmers  will,  therefore,  have  to  reckon 
with  a  considerable  deficit  of  nitrogen  *  unless  the  use 
of  coke  assumes  far  greater  proportions  than  hereto- 
fore. Every  housewife  should  realize  that  she  is  as- 
sisting the  farmers  when  she  burns  coke  instead  of 
coal  as  formerly. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  to  counteract  these  various 
deficits  somewhat,  Germany  possesses  at  present  some 
grain,  fodder,  and  fertilizer  in  large  commercial  store- 
houses. It  is,  however,  impossible  to  estimate  these 
quantities,  which,  at  best,  can  only  postpone  the  evil 
day.  And  when  they  are  used  up  it  would,  indeed, 
be  an  evil  day,  unless  Germany  were  able  to  adjust 

*  Since  the  writing  of  this  chapter  the  German  Government 
has  announced  the  perfection  of  the  marvelous  process  by 
which  nitrates  are  drawn  from  the  air.  To  encourage  the 
investment  of  private  capital  in  this  process  a  monopoly  has 
been  established  to  last  until   1922. 

From  the  military  point  of  view  this  discovery  is  most 
important,  because  Germany  had  begun  to  be  short  of  salt- 
peter, which  is  needed  in  the  manufacture  of  powder.  Dur- 
ing February  there  was  not  infrequently  a  shortage  in  powder. 
This  has  now  been  removed. 


290  Germany's  Point  of  View 

herself  to  the  altered  conditions.  A  proper  change  in 
her  mode  of  life  can,  however,  keep  her  from  starv- 
ing, if  the  whole  people  resolutely  face  the  problems 
which  England  has  propounded  for  their  solution. 
The  Germans  today  are  like  unto  the  man  who  has 
had  a  large  income  and  been  accustomed  to  a  luxuri- 
ous way  of  living.  Suddenly  his  allowance  is  greatly 
curtailed  and  he  has  to  learn  that  he  must  either  do 
with  less  or  starve. 

Of  all  the  food  men  eat  some  is  a  necessity  and  the 
rest  a  luxury.  It  becomes,  therefore,  a  duty  to  en- 
quire how  much  food  a  man  needs,  and  of  what  qual- 
ity. Man  is  like  a  machine,  into  whose  motor  sub- 
stances are  introduced  and  there  transformed  by  vari- 
ous processes  into  energy. 

The  chief  difference  between  a  man  and  a  machine 
is  that  the  latter  can  be  stopped  for  repairs,  while  the 
tissues,  etc.,  of  the  former  which  are  used  up  must 
be  rebuilt  during  the  ceaseless  process  of  life.  Food, 
therefore,  serves  two  entirely  separate  purposes :  First, 
to  rebuild  worn-out  tissues,  and  secondly,  to  provide 
heat  and  energy.  For  the  former,  proteids,  salt,  and 
water  are  needed.  The  last  two  substances  are  con- 
tained in  sufficiently  large  quantities  in  the  food  of 
all  civilized  people,  so  that  protein  alone  need  be  con- 
sidered. It  may,  in  short,  be  said  to  be  the  one  indis- 
'pensible  substance  needed  for  the  rebuilding  of  tissues. 

The  very  opposite  is  the  case  when  protein  is  par- 
taken of  in  food  which  is  meant  to  supply  energy  to 
the  human  body,  for  it  may  then  be  replaced  by  either 
or  both  of  the  two  other  energy-producing  substances : 
the  fats  and  the  carbohydrates.  The  respective  values 
of  these  substances  for  the  purposes  of  creating  energy 


The  German  Food  Supply  291 

are  measured  by  units  called  calories;  one  calorie  be- 
ing the  amount  of  heat  needed  to  increase  the  warmth 
of  I  kilogram  (a  little  over  two  pounds)  by  one  de- 
gree centigrade  (=1.8°  Fahrenheit).  Experiments 
have  shown  that  one  gram  of  fat  produces  9.3  calories; 
one  gram  of  carbohydrates  and  one  gram  of  protein 
each  4.1  calories.  It  is  further  known  how  many  cal- 
ories are  needed  by  people  at  the  various  degrees  of 
light,  medium,  or  hard  labor,  and  also  how  much  pro- 
tein has  to  be  introduced  to  keep  the  tissues  of  the  hu- 
man body  replenished.  On  the  strength  of  these 
known  data  and  very  accurate  studies  and  estimates 
(which  need  not  be  repeated  here  in  detail)  the  Ger- 
man scientists  have  prepared  a  table  which  clearly 
shows  the  problems  which  the  Germans  have  to  solve 
if  they  will  fare  better  in  the  huge  concentration  camp 
which  England  is  trying  to  make  of  Germany  than 
did  the  South  African  women  and  children  in  the  Boer 
War. 

CaU  Pro- 
oriesin  tein  Mil- 
Food  Values  For  Year.                  Billions,  lion  Tons. 
Actually  required  by  the  German  people.   56.75  1605 

Average  used  in  recent  years 90.42  2307 

Available   under  present   economic   con- 
ditions      67.68  1554 

This  table  shows  that  the  available  energy-produc- 
ing food,  while  considerably  less  than  what  the  Ger- 
mans have  been  accustomed  to  eat,  is  more  than  what 
they  actually  need. 

In  the  proteids,  however,  which  are  indispensable 
for  the  rebuilding  of  tissues,  viz.,  for  keeping  the  body 
well,  a  deficit  exists  not  only  in  comparison  with  what 


292  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  Germans  used  to  eat,  but  also  with  what  they  ac- 
tually need. 

This  is  the  disquieting  conclusion  which  the  German 
scientists  have  reached  and  which  would  mean  victory 
for  the  English,  if  the  latter  had  to  do  with  any  other 
people  but  the  Germans.  Fortunately  the  German 
scientists  have  shown  how  this  deficit  can  be  met,  and 
there  is  little  doubt  that  the  wonderful  solidarity  of 
the  Germans  will  enable  them  to  put  theory  into  prac- 
tice, and  to  frustrate  the  English  plan.  The  Germans, 
however,  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  inhuman 
attempt  has  been  made  to  starve  to  death,  not  only 
their  soldiers,  but  also  their  women  and  children,  and 
it  has  filled  them  with  astonishment  that  America  has 
not  raised  her  voice  to  frustrate  this  plan ! 


B 


CHAPTER  XXII 

THE  GERMAN  FOOD  SUPPLY 

(Concluded) 

ARON  FISHER,  the  present  British  first  sea  lord 
of  the  admiralty,  has  expressed  his  views  of  how 
the  English  should  fight  in  these  words  (quoted  from 
The  Great  Illusion,  by  Norman  Angell,  page  350)  : 

If  you  rub  it  in,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  that  you  are 
ready  for  instant  war  with  every  unit  of  your  strength 
in  the  first  line,  and  waiting  to  be  first  in,  and  hit  your 
enemy  in  the  belly  and  kick  him  when  he  is  down,  and 
boil  your  prisoners  in  oil  (if  you  take  any)  and  torture 
their  women  and  children,  the  people  will  keep  clear 
of  you. 

And  Lord  Roberts  gave  his  hearty  approval  to 
these  words  of  Major  Stewart  L.  Murray  (1905)  (In 
the  introduction  he  wrote  to  Murray's  book,  The  Peace 
of  the  Anglo-Saxons)  : 

The  worst  of  all  errors  in  war  is  a  mistaken  spirit  of 
benevolence.  ...  It  was  not  in  such  a  spirit  of  weakness 
that  we  wrested  the  command  of  the  sea  from  the  Dutch, 
that  we  fought  the  great  struggle  against  Napoleon,  or 
seized  the  Danish  fleet  at  Copenhagen  in  1807  to  avert 
its  possible  use  against  us. 

Lord  Kitchener,  finally,  was  the  inventor  of  the 
unique  torture  called  a  South  African  concentration 
camp,  in  which  30,000  women  and  children  "  died " 
during  the  Boer  war. 

293 


294  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Out  of  the  combined  efforts  of  these  three  types  of 
military  scientists  the  British  Government  has  evolved 
the  gigantic  plan  of  winning  the  present  war  by  starv- 
ing her  Teutonic  allies  —  men,  women,  and  children. 
The  boldness  of  this  attempt  is  stupendous,  but  not 
more  so  than  the  Teutonic  reply,  which  is  divided 
into  two  parts. 

In  the  first  place  the  English  people  are  told  that 
they  are  to  be  held  responsible  as  a  whole  for  the  kind 
of  warfare  their  oligarchical  government  is  permitted 
to  wage ;  and  that  people  who  contemplate  the  murder 
by  starvation  of  whole  nations  have  placed  themselves 
outside  the  pale  of  humanitarian  considerations.  The 
fate  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  was  not  more  terrible 
than  what  the  English  plan,  of  starving  women  and 
children,  deserves,  and  what  London  and  other  places 
may  suffer,  unless  this  plan  can  be  frustrated. 

The  second  part  of  the  Teutonic  reply  is  found  in 
the  attempt  to  readjust  the  economic  life  of  Germany, 
that  the  Germans  may  subsist  even  if  they  are  shut 
out  from  the  resources  of  the  outside  world,  Austria, 
with  a  smaller  population  and  accessible  importations 
of  food  from  Roumania,  is  less  hard  hit. 

The  preliminary  investigations  on  which  to  base  a 
comprehensive  plan  were  discussed  in  the  previous 
chapter,  where  a  table  was  given,  prepared  by  a  com- 
mittee of  German  scientists,  which  showed  that  the 
greatest  deficit  in  available  food  existed  in  the  proteids, 
that  is  the  tissue-building  substances,  while  the  supply 
of  energy-producing  foodstuffs,  measured  *by  calories, 
appeared  to  be  sufficient.  If  the  Germans,  therefore, 
wish  to  subsist,  a  comprehensive  readjustment  of  their 
mode  of  life  is  obligatory.    What,  in  short,  must  they 


The  German  Food  Supply  295 

do  to  thwart  the  EngHsh  plan?  This  is  answered  in 
the  second  part  of  the  pamphlet  issued  by  the  German 
scientists  (and  discussed  in  the  last  chapter),  whose 
advice  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  All  available  food,  especially  that  containing  protein, 
should  be  stored  and,  if  need  be,  taken  charge  of  either 
by  the  federal  government  or  by  the  several  municipalities. 
This  has  since  been  done  so  far  as  the  grain  supply  is 
concerned. 

2.  The  exportation  of  all  such  foodstuffs  should  be  for- 
bidden. Early  in  the  war  an  exception  had  been  made 
in  the  interest  of  Switzerland,  who  is  dependent  for  her 
supply  on  the  importation  of  grain.  When,  however, 
England  decreed  that  no  grain  should  reach  Germany 
the  latter  was  obliged  strictly  to  enforce  her  embargo 
on  the  exportation  of  grain.  When,  therefore,  the  neutral 
nations  made  the  mistake  of  believing  that  the  rights  of 
neutrals  are  privileges  which  may  be  waived,  instead  of 
rights  which  it  is  their  duty  to  enforce,  the  Swiss  were 
the  first  sufferers  of  an  erroneous  policy. 

5.  Since  pigs  are  men's  greatest  rivals  in  eating  food 
that  is  fit  to  support  human  life,  and  since  there  is  a 
great  loss,  especially  in  proteids,  in  the  transformation 
of  the  original  food  into  pork,  the  number  of  pigs  kept 
should  be  greatly  reduced  as  soon  as  possible.  Experi- 
ments have  proved  that  almost  twice  as  many  people  can 
subsist  on  the  food  fed  to  a  pig  as  on  the  meat  of  the  pig 
itself.  The  newly  slaughtered  pigs,  however,  should  not 
be  thrown  on  the  market.  Instead,  every  farmer  should 
cure,  pickle,  or  otherwise  preserve  as  much  pork  as  pos- 
sible ;  and  in  the  towns  and  cities  large  storehouses  should 
buy  up  the  remainder.  In  this  way  a  sudden  drop  in 
prices  and  the  consequent  temptation  to  eat  too  much 
meat  at  present  would  be  avoided. 

4.  In  planning  for  the  harvest  of  191 5  every  available 
acre  of  land  should  be  planted  and  much  attention  be 
given  to  the  crops  of  largest  yield,  such  as  beets  and 
potatoes.  The  latter  are  next  to  grain  the  most  valuable 
food,  and  should,  therefore,  be  used  very  sparingly  dur- 
ing the  war  for  anything  but  food.  This  means  that  the 
manufacture  of  starch  and  its  use  should  be  curtailed. 
Men  should  do  without  starched  shirts  and  women  without 


296  Germany's  Point  of  View 

starched  petticoats,  and  in  everything  housewives  should 
reduce  the  use  of  starch  to  a  minimum. 

The  manufacture  of  alcohol,  on  the  other  hand,  cannot 
be  equally  curtailed,  because  it  is  one  of  the  substitutes 
for  gasolene,  and  may  be  needed  for  motor-plows  which 
all  large  estates  should  introduce.  The  calculations  in 
this  connection  are  especially  interesting  because  the 
committee  investigated  in  detail  the  relative  value  of  oxen 
and  their  food  and  of  the  food  lost  to  the  population  by 
the  manufacture  of  alcohol.  Since  the  balance  is  in  favor 
of  ploughing  with  motors,  the  committee  recommends  it, 
but  urges  upon  the  farmers  the  strictest  economy. 

5.  Berries  and  small  fruits,  especially  apples,  should  be 
more  carefully  gathered  and  be  preserved  in  large  quan- 
tities. They  are  not  only  an  excellent  reHsh,  but  for  most 
people  the  only  acceptable  means  of  introducing  sugar  into 
the  system,  and  sugar,  as  will  be  seen  later,  must  play 
a  prominent  part  in  the  German  food  supply  during 
the  war. 

6.  The  manufacture  of  butter  should  be  very  much  cur- 
tailed, because  it  contains  only  the  fat  of  the  milk,  while 
all  the  protein  is  left  in  the  skimmed  milk.  As  previously 
stated  (Chapter  xxi)  one  gram  of  fat  creates  9.3  cal- 
ories, and  ohe  gram  of  carbohydrates,  4.1  calories.  But- 
ter is  fat  and  sugar  carbohydrates.  By  substituting,  there- 
fore, jam  for  butter  in  connection  with  bread  and  eating 
it  liberally  the  same  amount  of  energy-producing  food 
may  be  obtained,  and  much  more  fresh  milk  be  made 
available  for  human  consumption.  It  is,  however,  not 
necessary  to  do  away  with  butter  altogether,  provided  the 
skimmed  milk,  which  used  to  be  fed  to  the  pigs,  be  made 
available.  The  committee  recommends  the  building  up 
of  a  special  trade  in  skimmed  milk,  and  urges  families 
who  do  not  relish  it  in  its  natural  state  to  partake  of  it 
in  the  shape  of  puddings,  milk  toasts,  or  soups. 

7.  The  cooperation  of  the  people  is  a  necessity.  Men 
do  not  live  by  the  food  they  put  into  their  stomachs  but 
by  that  part  of  it  which  they  assimilate.  The  more  they 
enjoy  it,  the  greater  benefit  they  derive  from  it.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  very  foolish  to  alter  one's  mode  of  life  of 
a  sudden,  and  without  due  regard  to  the  peculiar  needs 
of  one's  physique.  There  are,  however,  few  people  who 
can  not  gradually  shift  from  their  accustomed  food  of 
meats   and  other   substances   rich   in   fat  and  protein   to 


The  German  Food  Supply  297 

one  which  contains  only  as  much  protein  as  is  needed 
for  the  rebuilding  of  the  tissues,  and  for  the  rest  consists 
of  the  energy-producing  substances,  the  fats  and  especially 
the  carbohydrates  of  which  Germany  has  an  abundance. 

To  facilitate  this  change  and  to  make  the  conclusions 
of  the  committee  available  throughout  the  country, 
three  popular  books  have  been  published :  The  first  is 
called  Food  in  War  Time,  and  is  addressed  to  *'offi- 
cials,  ministers,  physicians,  teachers,  housewives,  and 
all  who  wish  to  help."  It  is  sold  at  four  cents,  and 
in  larger  quantities  at  two  cents,  American  money. 

The  second  is  called  A  Leaflet  on  the  Food  Supply, 
and  is  distributed  free  to  all  societies,  clubs,  unions, 
and  other  labor  organizations. 

The  third  is  The  Little  War  Cookbook,  by  Hedwig 
Heyl,  which  is  sold  at  the  nominal  price  of  six  cents, 
and  in  larger  quantities  at  four  cents.  It  contains' 
recipes  of  inexpensive  and  nourishing  dishes  such  as 
the  former  generations  used  to  eat  and  enjoy,  but 
which  a  more  luxurious  age  had  discarded.  In  addition 
there  are  many  recipes  of  entirely  new  dishes  which 
will  make  use  of  such  foodstuffs  as  in  more  prosperous 
times  are  wasted. 

The  value  of  this  little  book  is  incalculable,  for  if 
the  German  people  learn  the  lesson  which  England's 
plan  is  forcing  upon  them,  that  the  expensive  dishes 
are  not  only  not  necessary  but  often  even  detrimental, 
they  will  be  that  much  the  better  prepared  to  push 
ahead  when  peace  has  come  and  resume  their  victo- 
rious progress  in  the  world  of  commerce,  science,  and 
industry,  which  the  war  had  interrupted. 

To  the  friends  of  Germany  this  is  the  remarkable 
fact  that  the  whole  world  cannot  see  that  Germany 


298  Germany's  Point  of  View 

was  the  only  one  of  the  nations  at  war  who  had 
nothing  to  gain  that  a  continued  peace  would  not  have 
dropped  as  a  ripe  fruit  into  her  lap.  France  hoped 
to  regain  Alsace-Lorraine,  Russia  had  her  eyes  on 
Constantinople,  Austria  wanted  to  be  rid  of  the 
intrigues  of  Servia,  and  England  was  smarting  under 
the  commercial  rivalry  of  a  nation  whose  progress  was 
about  twice  her  own  and  who  promised  to  outstrip 
her  completely  in  less  than  a  generation.  Germany, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  nothing  to  gain.  Her  industries 
were  growing  apace  and  were  able  to  feed  each  year 
the  increase  of  her  population  of  about  one  million 
souls,  and  do  it  more  easily  every  year.*  Her  emigra- 
tion had  practically  ceased.  Poverty,  in  the  English 
sense  of  destitution,  was  unknown  anywhere  in  Ger- 
many. Her  finances  were  in  excellent  condition,  her 
assets  exceeded  by  far  her  liabilities.  Her  army,  large 
as  it  was,  was  no  longer  a  burden,  because  there  were 
each  year  many  more  youths  of  military  age  than 
could  be  used  in  the  army.  Her  military  expenditures 
were  less  than  those  of  France,  England,  or  Russia, 
and  her  budget  for  schools  very  much  larger.  What 
had  Germany  to  gain  by  war?  Absolutely  nothing. 
What  had  a  jealous  rival  to  gain?  Everything.  Ger- 
many had  learned  that  efficiency  and  the  open  door 
was  all  she  needed  to  succeed  in  the  world.  England 
wished  to  maintain  her  supremacy  without  efficiency 
by  means  of  territorial  possessions  and  a  monopoly 
of  the  sea.  It  is  this  "terrible"  German  efficiency 
that  may  yet  win  against  the  English  ''  silver  bullets '' 
and  the  biggest  fleet  and  most  numerous  allies  the 
world  has  ever  seen.  When  Asquith  heard  of  the 
*  See  the  author's  What  Germany  Wants,  Chapter  Five. 


The  German  Food  Supply  299 

new  German  order  that  to  conserve  the  grain  supply 
every  German  citizen,  however  rich  or  poor,  receives 
each  week  a  ticket  enabhng  him  to  buy  four  pounds 
of  bread  —  no  more  —  and  that  this  rule  was  cheer- 
fully accepted  by  all,  he  is  quoted  as  having  said  that 
it  was  not  the  German  army  he  was  afraid  of,  but  the 
''  spirit  of  the  German  bread-ticket." 

This  same  spirit  has  shown  itself  in  the  readiness 
of  the  people  to  comply  with  the  recommendations  of 
the  Committee  of  Scientists.  One  of  their  suggestions 
was  that  the  farmers  should  keep  less  stock,  because 
the  importation  of  fodder  had  ceased,  and  it  had  been 
forbidden  to  feed  to  the  stock  grain  or  potatoes,  or 
any  other  food  capable  of  sustaining  human  life.  Is 
there  another  country  in  the  world  where  all  the 
farmers  would  have  complied  with  this  order,  as  they 
have  done  in  Germany?  Nobody  who  has  not  been 
on  Gernian  farms,  small  or  large,  and  has  not  seen  the 
tender  love  of  the  men  for  their  stock,  can  know  how 
deep  their  sorrow  was,  when,  in  the  interest  of  all, 
they  had  to  deplete  their  herds.  Years  of  hard  labor 
may  have  made  it  possible  for  many  a  farmer  to  fill 
his  barns  with  choice  cattle  at  last.  Each  cow  was 
known  by  name  atid  many  were  the  recipients  of  actual 
love.  Now  the  family  had  to  be  broken  up. — But 
what's  the  use  ?  People  who  do  not  know  the  Germans 
will  not  understand  what  the  farmers  feel,  and  people 
who  do  know  them  need  no  description. — One  thing, 
however,  is  sure,  every  day  there  grows  in  every  Ger- 
man heart  a  deeper  resentment  against  the  inhuman 
plan  of  the  English  to  starve  to  death  a  whole  nation. 
Will  the  neutral  nations  never  speak  up  ?  Does  it  mean 
nothing  to  them,  when  they  see  the  German  farmer 


300  Germany's  Point  of  View 

read  this  sentence  from  the  official  report:  ''Unless 
another  way  is  found,  we  must,  to  conserve  our  food 
supply,  do  away  with  three  million  cows." 

Three  million  cows  is  a  little  more  than  one  quarter 
of  all  the  cows  owned  in  Germany  at  the  last  census. 
Add  to  these  nine  million  pigs,  which  must  be  killed, 
and  you  can  get  an  idea  of  the  change  which  will  have 
to  take  place  on  the  German  farms. 

But  even  this  enormous  slaughter  of  animals  and 
the  consequent  saving  of  food  would  not  suffice  unless 
a  great  proportion  of  the  food  which  under  ordinary 
conditions  is  wasted  or  lost  can  be  preserved.  This 
loss  is  very  great  with  the  invaluable  potato,  and  to 
avoid  it  communal  drying-plants  are  everywhere  intro- 
duced. It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  a  remunerative 
investment  of  money,  but  of  the  preservation  of  food; 
and  no  means  promise  better  results  than  these  drying- 
plants. 

Other  suggestions  have  to  do  with  the  preservation 
of  fatty  substances.  Housewives  are  shown  by  actual 
figures  how  large  a  percentage  of  fat  they  have  per- 
mitted to  run  into  the  sewers,  and  there  is  probably 
not  a  household  in  Germany  today  where  this  tremen- 
dous waste  is  not  at  least  somewhat  stopped. 

Tables  also  have  been  prepared  to  show  the  gradual 
increase  of  the  per  capita  consumption  of  meat  in 
Germany  and  to  prove  how  unnecessary  it  is.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  a  kilogram  is  slightly  more  than 
two  English  pounds.    The  consumption  was: 

Year —                      k.  g.  Year —                      k.  g. 

1816 13.6        1883 29.3 

1840 21.6        1892 32.5 

1861 23.2        1900 43.4 

1873 29.5        1907 46.2 


The  German  Food  Supply  301 

This  shows  that  the  meat  consumption  today  is 
twice  as  great  as  it  was  fifty  years  ago.  Nobody, 
however,  will  deny  that  the  people  then  were  as 
healthy  as  they  are  now.  Less  meat  and  more  vege- 
tables, less  fat  and  more  carbohydrates  is  the  reply 
to  England's  inhuman  designs,  and  with  this  in  view 
careful  suggestions  have  been  made  for  the  planning 
of  the  most  serviceable  vegetables. 

Another  article  of  food  which  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently appreciated  is  cheese,  for  cheese  is  rich  in 
proteids,  and  often  also  in  fats.  The  so-called 
mager-kase,  moreover,  is  the  best  means  of  preserving 
skimmed  milk. 

Of  some  of  the  other  suggestions  only  a  few  need 
be  mentioned.  The  Germans  eat  annuaHy  about  four- 
teen million  tons  of  potatoes,  but  of  this  quantity  fully 
fifteen  per  cent  are  lost  because  potatoes  are  generally 
peeled  before  they  are  cooked.  This  loss  can  be 
entirely  avoided  by  peeling  the  potatoes  after  they 
are  cooked.  This,  however,  often  leaves  a  slight 
flavor  of  the  skin  which  is  avoided  if  the  potatoes,  after 
being  peeled,  are  boiled  for  three  more  minutes  in 
salted  water. 

Sugar  has  been  less  used  in  Germany  than  in  either 
England  or  America,  where  its  consumption  has  been 
about  twice  as  large  as  that  of  Germany.  The  German 
export  of  sugar  has  averaged  about  one  million  tons 
annually.  This  should  now  be  consumed  at  home,  and 
to  induce  the  people  to  consume  more  of  it,  the  com- 
mittee has  given  an  exhaustive  discussion  to  its  nutri- 
tive qualities.    This  sentence  is  especially  interesting: 

Detailed  investigations  have  proved  that  the  feeling  of 
tired  exhaustion  is  successfully  combated  if  one  partakes 
of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  grams  of  sugar  every  half  hour. 


302  Germany's  Point  of  View 

It  is  impossible  to  read  this  report  of  the  voluntary 
committee  of  German  scientists  without  being  con- 
vinced that  they  are  right.  Germany  will  not  starve. 
She  will  cheat  the  devil.  She  will  come  out  on  top, 
not  because  she  has  an  abundance,  but  because  hers  is 
a  country  of  organized  liberty.  Does  anybody  think 
that  an  autocratic  state  like  Russia  could  enforce  such 
rules  as  are  outlined  above,  or  that  an  oligarchical 
state  like  England  could  put  them  into  execution  with 
any  prospects  of  success,  or  that  a  democracy  of  the 
French  calibre  could  do  anything  with  them?  Every 
one  of  these  states  placed  in  the  position  in  which 
Germany  finds  herself  would  unquestionably  succumb. 
The  reason  why  Germany  will  rise  victorious  is  appar- 
ent to  all  who  know  her,  and  was  summed  up  less 
than  two  years  ago  by  Charles  W.  Eliot,  ex-President 
of  Harvard  University,  when  he  said  at  a  banquet 
given  by  the  German  Publication  Society  in  New  York, 
that  two  doctrines  have  made  Germany  great : 

The  first,  the  doctrine  of  universal  education,  and  the  sec- 
ond, the  great  doctrine  of  civil  liberty,  liberty  in  industries, 
in  society,  in  government,  liberty  with  order  under  law. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

NAVAL  WAR  AND  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

IN  the  discussion  of  international  complications  aris- 
ing from  the  conduct  of  the  war  on  sea,  two 
entirely  different  and  incompatible  principles  of  law 
are  constantly  invoked :  the  written  law,  i.  e.,  the  Dec- 
larations of  Paris  and  London  and  the  Hague  Conven- 
tions, and  the  unwritten  so-called  Law  of  Nations. 

This  conflict  between  the  written  and  the  unwritten 
(i.  e.,  the  common)  law  is  of  far-reaching  importance. 
Germany  has  gone  further  than  any  other  country  in 
accepting  the  principle  of  the  written  law  as  alone 
binding  in  her  courts.  It  implies  the  firm  belief  that 
the  people  of  Germany  are  capable  of  making  their 
own  laws,  and  that  the  administration  of  justice  in 
any  one  generation  is  best  served  when  it  follows  the 
conscience  of  the  people  then  living,  expressed  in  the 
laws  passed  by  their  own  legislatures.  The  Germans 
refuse  to  worship  at  the  shrine  of  abstract  justice  and 
claim  that  altered  conditions  demand  new  definitions 
of  right  and  wrong.  They  do  not  understand  the 
English  view  that  a  principle  of  justice  laid  down,  say, 
in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  accepted  then 
possibly  because  it  had  been  followed  for  several  hun- 
dred years,  must  be  a  correct  principle  today. 

England's  legal  faith  has  turned  in  the  very  opposite 
direction  from  that  of  Germany.  The  very  attempt 
to  reduce  justice  to  definite  laws  seems  absurd  to  the 

303 


304  '       Germany's  Point  of  View 

English  jurist,  who  looks  with  considerable  distrust 
on  every  attempt  of  the  people  to  make  their  own  laws. 
What  does  the  man  in  the  street,  or  the  laborer,  or  the 
clerk,  or  the  shopkeeper,  or  anybody  else  but  the  jurist 
know  about  justice?  And  what  will  become  of  the 
world  if  the  truth  of  the  principle  is  denied  that  justice 
is  the  same  always?  If  after  generations  of  honest 
striving  a  principle  of  justice  has  been  established  it 
should  be  maintained  for  all  times.  Such  a  view  takes 
no  account  of  the  changes  of  time,  and  is,  the  Ger- 
mans believe,  the  cause  of  the  backward  conditions  of 
the  English  masses. 

England,  it  is  true,  has  some  written  or  statutory 
laws,  but  back  of  them  there  always  looms  as  the 
beacon  light  of  justice  the  unwritten  or  common  law, 
as  it  has  been  interpreted  through  centuries  by  her 
best  legal  talent. 

The  legal  procedure  of  America  is  based  on  that  of 
England,  but  every  year  more  independent  minds  are 
chafing  under  the  restraint  of  what  may  be  exquisitely 
just  in  the  abstract,  but  works  great  injustice  in  the 
concrete.  The  American  people,  however,  have  rarely 
been  patient  enough  to  enact  well-rounded  codes  of 
law  and  the  not  infrequent  injustice  of  enacted  laws 
has  been  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  reac- 
tionary worshippers  of  the  common  law,  who  are  sure 
that  the  American  people  cannot  be  trusted  with  the 
making  of  their  own  laws.  The  feeling,  nevertheless, 
has  latterly  been  growing  in  America  that  it  is  ridicu- 
lous to  have  our  ancestors  of  five,  ten,  or  more  genera- 
tions ago  prescribe  for  us  what  is  just,  when  we  have 
long  discarded  their  advice  in  every  other  realm, 
especially  in  those  of  religion  and  of  art. 


Naval  War  and  International  Law        305 

Soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  present  war  England 
practically  said:  "There  is  an  unwritten  law  of 
nations  concerning  the  conduct  of  the  war  on  the  sea, 
and  there  are  some  written  laws,  the  Declaration  of 
Paris  (1856),  The  Hague  Convention  (1907),  and 
the  Declaration  of  London  (1909).  Since  not  one  of 
these  three  laws  has  been  finally  accepted  by  all  the 
belligerents,  none  of  them  is  binding  on  us.  We  shall, 
therefore,  revert  to  the  unwritten  law  of  nations, 
which,  after  all,  is  the  only  really  just  guide  in  the 
conduct  of  war.  It  will  be  administered  by  our  own 
courts  in  the  same  impartial  spirit  which  has  always 
characterized  them." 

In  saying  this  England  was  true  to  herself.  Many 
of  her  people  had  been  chafing  under  the  restraints  of 
the  Declarations  of  Paris  and  London  and  The  Hague 
Conventions,  believing  them  to  be  unwarranted  in- 
fringements of  their  sovereign  rights.  And  it  is  per- 
fectly conceivable  that  the  English  jurists  felt  gratified 
when  their  Government  renounced  these  written  laws, 
and  declared  that  hereafter  it  would  be  bound  only  by 
the  sacred  laws  of  hoary  antiquity,  under  which  Eng- 
land had  established  her  empire. 

But  as  conditions  have  changed  in  internal  affairs 
and  what  once  was  considered  just,  works  harm  for 
many  people  today,  so  also  in  international  relations, 
the  principles  which  England  had  inherited,  and  to 
which  all  other  States  used  to  submit,  have  grown  irk- 
some for  the  neutral  States,  who  are  no  longer  willing 
to  acknowledge  that  England  is  supreme  in  anything 
but  name. 

However  natural,  therefore,  England's  course  may 
have  been  from  her  own  point  of  view,  it  could  not  fail 


3o6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

to  arouse  resentment  in  two  quarters.  Her  enemies 
said  that  England  tore  up  the  only  laws  there  were 
when  she  renounced  the  Declaration  of  London  and  all 
preceding  agreements,  and  since  the  Teutonic  people 
take  no  stock  in  England's  worship  of  an  unwritten 
law,  they  naturally  felt  that  England  had  reverted  to 
a  state  of  absolute  lawlessness. 

Since  it  is  an  accepted  principle  of  justice  that  no- 
body is  bound  to  observe  any  but  the  dictates  of  his 
heart  when  he  is  matched  against  an  opponent  who 
openly  refuses  obedience  to  existing  laws,  Germany 
has  treated  England  as  an  outlaw.  If  England  had 
not  renounced  the  written  law  of  nations,  Germany's 
submarine  war  against  her  would  be  of  very  doubtful 
legality.  Since  Germany,  however,  does  not  recognize 
England's  so-called  unwritten  law  as  law  at  all,  and 
considers  England's  attempt  to  starve  her  and  to 
throttle  her  commerce  as  monstrous,  she  feels  justified 
in  trying  to  do  the  same  thing  to  England  with  the 
only  means  at  her  disposal  —  with  her  submarines. 

The  question  naturally  arises  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
marine war,  how  about  the  right  of  the  neutral  coun- 
tries to  trade  with  England  ?  To  this  Germany  would 
probably  reply  something  like  this:  A  few  months 
ago  it  was  a  question  of  the  right  of  the  neutral  coun- 
tries to  trade  with  Germany.  Then  the  neutral 
countries,  to  the  great  disadvantage  of  Germany,  did 
not  insist  upon  their  rights,  treating  them  as  privileges 
which  could  be  waived  in  consideration  of  the  "great 
necessities"  of  England.  There  is,  therefore,  no  rea- 
son why  these  countries  should  not  now  be  willing  to 
waive  them  in  the  interest  of  Germany,  if  they  are 
really  neutral. 


Naval  War  and  International  Law        307 

Germany  has  at  all  times  been  willing  to  abide  by 
the  established  rules,  and  nothing  would  have  suited 
her  better  than  a  league  of  all  the  neutral  States, 
resolved  on  enforcing  the  rules.  No  such  league  was 
formed,  while  the  greatest  of  the  neutral  States  hum- 
bly submitted  to  England's  attempt  to  undo  at  one 
blow  what  the  best  minds  of  America  had  worked  for 
over  one  hundred  years  to  build  up. 

In  a  recent  article  in  the  Boston  Herald,  ex-Presi- 
dent Eliot  summed  up  the  American  aims  in  these 
words : 

Free  seas,  free  interocean  canals  and  straits,  the  "open 
door,"  and  free  competition  in  international  trade  are 
needed  securities  for  peace. 

He  might  have  added  "  and  a  neutralized  merchant 
marine,"  for  this  has  been  America's  great  contention 
for  over  one  hundred  years.  On  land  we  have  long 
passed  the  age  of  piracy,  and  private  property  is  safe, 
unless  requisitioned  for  use  of  the  army,  when  it  is 
paid  for  in  full.  On  sea,  however,  all  attempts  at  neu- 
tralizing the  commerce  of  the  world  have  met  with 
England's  unrelenting  opposition.  It  is  true  that  she 
joined  in  the  Declarations  of  Paris  and  London  and 
The  Hague  Convention,  but  never  so  thoroughly  that 
she  had  to  feel  bound  by  them. 

The  whole  nineteenth  century  and  the  first  decade 
of  the  twentieth  have  been  one  continual  struggle  to 
induce  England  to  renounce  her  "  right "  to  a  kind  of 
warfare  which,  while  it  had  made  her  great,  was  con- 
trary to  the  conscience  of  all  the  civilized  peoples  of 
the  world  save  her  own. 

The  struggle  began  in  1801  when  Russia  concluded  a 


3o8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

convention  with  Denmark  and  Sweden-Norway  with 
the  intention  of  estabHshing  a  new  code  of  maritime 
law.  It  was  their  view  that  neutral  shipping  in  the 
future  should  be  inviolate  in  war.  England  did  not 
like  this  and  in  his  speech  from  the  throne  in  Febru- 
ary, 1801,  the  king  of  England  referred  to  this  new 
code  as: 

inconsistent  with  the  rights  and  hostile  to  the  interests 
of  this  country.  ...  I  have  taken  the  earliest  measures 
to  repel  the  aggression  of  this  hostile  confederacy  and 
to  support  those  principles  which  are  essential  to  the 
maintenance  of  our  naval  strength,  and  which  are 
grounded  on  the  system  of  public  laws,  so  long  estab- 
lished and  recognized  in  Europe.  (Speeches  of  William 
Pitt  in  the  House  of  Commons,  page  221.) 

These  words  reflect  the  British  unwillingness  to 
adapt  their  laws  to  the  growing  sense  of  justice  and 
humaneness  of  mankind.  Pitt  himself,  speaking  on 
February  2,  1801,  amplified  the  same  idea,  when  he 
claimed  that  England  should  not  renounce  her  "  right " 
to  make  war  on  the  commerce  of  the  world,  neutral  or 
not  neutral. 

"If  it  should  be  proved,"  he  said,  "  that  our  greatness, 
nay  our  very  existence  as  a  nation,  and  everything  that 
has  raised  us  to  the  exalted  situation  which  we  hold, 
depends  upon  our  possessing  and  exercising  this  [right] 
—  if  I  say,  all  this  should  be  proved  in  the  most  satisfac- 
tory manner,  still  the  honorable  gentleman  [Mr.  Grey] 
is  prepared  seriously  to  declare  in  this  House,  that  such 
are  the  circumstances  in  which  we  stand,  that  we  ought 
publicly  and  explicitly  to  state  to  the  world  that  we  are 
unequal  to  the  contest,  and  that  we  must  quietly  give 
up  forever  an  unquestionable  right,  and  one  upon  which 
not  only  our  character,  but  our  very  existence  as  a  mari- 
time Power  depends."     (Ibid  p.  224.) 

Today  another  Grey  is  taking  part  in  English  poli- 


Naval  War  and  International  Law        309 

tics,  and  instead  of  opposing  Pitt's  doctrine,  is  its 
greatest  champion.  He,  too,  considers  it  to  be  an 
"unquestionable  right''  of  England  to  make  war  on 
the  commerce  of  the  world,  because  she  is  at  war  with 
Germany.  He  would  probably  give  his  hearty  approval 
also  to  the  following  words  of  Pitt : 

I  must  observe  that  the  honorable  gentleman  has  fallen 
into  the  same  error  which  constitutes  the  great  fallacy 
in  the  reasoning  of  the  advocates  [of  the  new  code  of 
maritime  law],  namely,  that  every  exception  from  the  gen- 
eral law  by  a  particular  treaty  proves  the  law  to  be  as 
it  is  stated  in  that  treaty,  whereas  the  very  circumstance 
of  making  an  exception  of  treaty  proves  what  the  general 
law  of  nations  would  be  if  no  such  treaty  were  made  to 
modify  or  alter  it."     (Ibid,  p.  22y.) 

Such  reasoning  carried  ad  absurdum  means  that  the 
very  fact  that  we  pass  a  law  forbidding  unfair  com- 
petition means  that  the  general  unwritten  law  of  peo- 
ple allows  unfair  competition ;  and  the  signing  of  any 
convention  forbidding  the  war  on  neutral  shipping 
implies  that  the  unwritten  law  of  nations  decrees  such 
a  war.  To  reason  like  this  is  monstrous,  for  it  sur- 
rounds with  a  halo  every  abuse  that  time  has  per- 
mitted to  grow  up.  It  is,  however,  the  reasoning  of 
all  who  thrive  by  special  privilege  and  hate  progress. 
It  is,  and  always  has  been,  the  reasoning  of  political 
England ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  the  age  that 
so  many  Americans  do  not  see  this.  Those  who  in 
America  have  fastened  their  grip  on  the  masses  whom 
they  exploit  will  naturally  sympathize  with  Pitt's  doc- 
trine, but  that  men  like  ex-President  Eliot  do  not  see 
that  England  is  fighting  to  maintain  such  outworn 
doctrines,  while  Germany  is  giving  her  heart's  blood  to 
break  them  down,  is  incomprehensible. 


3IO  Germany's  Point  of  View 

While  Pitt  placed  his  objection  to  the  new  code 
exclusively  on  the  high  moral  ground  of  adherence  to 
the  sanctity  of  the  unwritten  law  of  nations,  which 
he  did  not  wish  to  see  altered  by  written  conventions, 
Charles  Fox  was  perfectly  willing  to  make  his  appeal 
also  to  ''  common  sense,''  that  is,  to  the  British 
pocketbook.     He  said: 

If  the  commerce  of  a  Power  at  war  could  be  legally  car- 
ried on  by  a  neutral,  the  benefit  of  maritime  preponder- 
ance would  be  wholly  lost  —  a  thing  as  much  at  variance 
with  common  sense  as  it  would  be  repugnant  to  reason 
{Speeches  of  the  Rt.  Hon.  Charles  James  Fox  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  vol.  vi.,  p.  428). 

This  whole  idea  struck  terror  to  the  heart  of  the 
English,  for  if  their  "  right "  to  make  war  on  neutral 
commerce  were  taken  away  from  them,  they  might  be 
obliged  to  join  with  the  other  nations  in  an  efficiency 
test  of  competition.  What  would  then  become  of  their 
divine  right  of  superiority?  Would  such  a  code  not 
level  all  distinctions?  Was  it  not,  therefore,  a  sacred 
duty  to  fight  against  it  ?    For,  as  Pitt  said : 

Shall  we  voluntarily  give  up  our  maritime  consequence, 
and  expose  ourselves  to  scorn,  to  derision,  and  contempt? 
.  .  .  Will  you  silently  stand  by  and,  acknowledging  these 
monstrous  and  unheard-of  principles  of  neutrality,  ensure 
your  enemy  against  the  effects  of  your  hostility?  Four 
nations  have  leagued  to  produce  a  new  code  of  maritime 
laws,  in  defiance  of  the  established  law  of  nations.  .  .  . 
What  is  this  but  the  same  Jacobin  principle  which  pro- 
claimed the  Rights  of  Man.  ...  It  is  in  violation  of  the 
rights  of  England,  and  imperiously  calls  upon  Englishmen 
to  resist  it  even  to  the  last  shilling.  {Speeches  of  William 
Pitt  in  the  House  of  Commons,  p.  264.) 

Has  ever  man  more  truly  expressed  what  has  ailed 


Naval  War  and  International  Law        311 

England  for  more  than  one  hundred  years?  The 
Rights  of  Man  are  in  violation  of  the  Rights  of  Eng- 
land! The  great  lesson  of  the  French  Revolution  and 
the  American  Declaration  of  Independence  has  passed 
England  by.  This  is  why  Ireland  hates  her,  and  why 
the  spectre  of  dire  poverty  stalks  through  the  land  at 
the  same  time  that  an  idle  aristocracy  and  a  greedy 
oligarchy  are  sucking  the  country  dry.  The  Rights  of 
Man  in  violation  of  the  rights  of  England !  This  was 
said  in  1801,  and  it  is  as  true  today  as  then.  England 
does  not  know  equality  and  equal  opportunity  at 
home,  and  does  not  want  them  among  the  nations. 
Her  claim  to  "  supremacy  "  is  not  an  idle  boast.  She 
believes  she  is  first,  and  whoever  approaches  that 
exalted  position  must  be  quelched.  She  acted  on  this 
principle  with  Spain,  France,  Holland,  and  the  United 
States,  all  of  whom  she  deprived  of  their  merchant 
marines.  Today  she  is  trying  to  do  the  same  thing 
with  Germany.  But  she  has  tried  it  once  too  often. 
This  time  she  will  have  to  acknowledge  the  Rights  of 
Man,  for  after  the  war  there  will  be  no  aristocracy  of 
nations.     They  will  all  be  on  an  equal  footing. 

In  1801,  however,  Pitt's  "last  shilling,"  the  proto- 
type of  Lloyd  George's  "silver  bullet,"  averted  the 
danger  and  the  northern  powers  withdrew  their  mari- 
time code.  A  new  convention  was  signed  with  Russia 
which  met  with  the  high  approval  of  Lord  Nelson,  who 
was  glad  that  it 

had  put  an  end  to  the  principle  .  .  .  that  free  ships  made 
free  goods  —  a  proposition  so  monstrous  in  itself,  so  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  nations,  and  so  injurious  to  the  mari- 
time rights  of  this  country  that  if  it  had  been  persisted 
in,  England  should  not  have  made  peace  {Parliamentary 
History,  vol.  36,  p.  262). 


312  Germany's  Point  of  View 

After  this  the  English,  who  had  been  badly  scared, 
had  some  years  of  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  their 
**  rights  "  until  one  of  their  ministers  was  so  rash  as 
to  join  with  other  nations  in  the  Declaration  of  Paris 
(1856).     This  declaration  contains  four  points: 

J.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy's  merchandise,  with 
the  exception  of  contraband  of  war. 

5.  Neutral  merchandise,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band of  war,  is  not  capturable  under  the  enemy's  flag. 

4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  obligatory,  must  be  effec- 
tive; that  is  to  say,  maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  to 
really  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the  enemy. 

It  was  a  first  step  in  advance,  albeit  such  a  halting 
one  that  the  United  States  refused  to  ratify  it,  claim- 
ing that  privateering  and  the  capture  of  the  enemy's, 
as  well  as  neutral's,  private  property  on  the  sea,  should 
be  abolished  at  the  same  time.  The  English,  however, 
were  greatly  exercised,  and  the  Earl  of  Derby  actually 
said  on  May  22,  1856: 

I  look  upon  this  act  ...  as  cutting  off  the  right  arm,  as 
it  were,  of  the  country.  I  look  upon  it  as  depriving  her 
of  those  natural  advantages  which  her  great  maritime 
power  has  given  her  in  war,  and  of  the  exercise  of  that 
superiority  and  those  belligerent  rights  without  which  she 
is  nothing.    {Parliamentary  Debates,  vol.  142,  p.  535.) 

Pitt  had  said  that  the  Rights  of  Man  were  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rights  of  England,  and  Lord  Derby  said 
that  without  these  rights  England  was  nothing !  From 
the  testimony  of  England's  own  statesmen,  therefore, 
it  appears  that  England  is  "lost"  as  soon  as  she  is 
forced  to  set  her  house  in  order  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples accepted  by  all  other  civilized  nations  —  princi- 
ples which  are  based  on  the  Rights  of  Man.    But  Eng- 


Naval  War  and  International  Law       313 

land  does  not  want  to  set  her  house  to  rights,  and, 
leaving  conditions  at  home  as  they  are,  England  is 
"lost,''  if  the  war  lasts  long,  unless  she  can  find  a 
means  of  breaking  every  restriction  on  her  "rights." 
This  was  clearly  felt  and  succintly  stated  by  J.  Stuart 
Mill,  who,  on  August  5,  1867,  {Parliamentary  Debates, 
volume  189,  p.  877),  spoke  in  reference  to  the  accept- 
ance of  the  Declaration  of  Paris  by  Great  Britain  as 
follows : 

We  have  put  away  the  natural  weapon  of  a  maritime 
nation.  .  .  .  Sir,  I  venture  to  call  the  renunciation  of 
the  right  of  seizing  enemy's  property  at  sea  a  national 
blunder.  Happily  it  is  not  an  irretrievable  one.  The 
Declaration  of  1856  is  not  a  treaty.  It  has  never  been 
ratified.  ...  It  is  not  a  permanent  engagement  between 
nations;  it  is  but  a  joint  declaration  of  present  inten- 
tion. .  .  .  Suppose  that  we  were  at  war  with  any  Power 
which  is  a  party  to  the  Declaration  of  Paris.  If  our 
cargoes  would  be  safe  in  neutral  bottoms,  but  unsafe  in 
our  own,  then  if  the  war  was  of  any  duration  our  whole 
export  and  import  trade  would  pass  to  the  neutral  flags, 
most  of  our  merchant  shipping  would  be  thrown  out  of 
employment,  and  would  be  sold  to  neutral  countries,  as 
happened  to  so  much  of  the  shipping  of  the  United  States 
from  the  pressure  of  two  or  three,  it  might  almost  be 
said  of  a  single  cruiser.  ...  A  protracted  war  on  such 
terms  must  end  in  national  disaster. 

Does  this  mean  anything  if  not  that  it  was  all  right 
for  England  to  capture  the  American  trade,  but  that 
it  would  be  all  wrong  if  America  were  permitted  to 
return  the  compliment?  Every  thoughtful  English- 
man in  politics,  moreover,  realized,  after  the  accept- 
ance of  the  Declaration  of  London  of  1909  that  Eng- 
land's greatness  was  based  on  her  "  right "  to  wage  war 
according  to  principles  which  the  rest  of  the  civilized 
world  had  grown  to  deem  barbarous.    The  Declaration 


314  Germany's  Point  of  View 

of  Paris  (1856)  for  the  first  time  established  the  prin- 
ciple that  there  are  other  rights  besides  those  of  Eng- 
land—  the  rights  of  neutrals  and  the  rights  of  hu- 
manity. England  —  not  the  intellectual  and  religious 
England,  but  the  political  England  —  fought  tooth  and 
nail  against  the  Declaration  of  Paris  until  she  found  a 
way  which  made  it  possible  for  her  to  avoid  its  obli- 
gations. Then  there  followed  The  Hague  Convention 
of  1907  and  the  Declaration  of  London  of  1909,  which 
met  with  violent  public  opposition  in  England.  Today 
she  has  torn  all  these  agreements  into  threads,  and,  to 
avoid  *'  national  disaster,''  has  fallen  back  on  her  own 
unwritten  Law  of  Nations.  This  "  law  "  is  a  survival 
of  the  past,  when  humanity  had  no  rights,  when  neu- 
trals had  no  rights,  and  when  the  "  rights  "  of  England 
were  supreme. 

What  will  the  world  do  about  it  ?  What  will  Amer- 
ica do  about  it?  Will  not  her  acquiescence  be  a  be- 
trayal of  every  principle  to  which  the  United  States 
confessed  allegiance  at  The  Hague  in  1907,  and  in 
London  in  1909? 

If  America  decides  not  to  acquiesce,  has  she  any 
means,  short  of  war,  to  enforce  her  demands?  She 
certainly  has ! 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

THE  DECLARATION    OF   LONDON 

WHEN  William  Pitt  said  in  Parliament  on  March 
25,  1 80 1,  that  England  would  never  surrender 
her  naval  "rights"  in  favor  of  a  new  maritime  law, 
which  recognized  as  paramount  the  rights  of  neutrals 
and  of  humanity,  he  explained  his  opposition  in  these 
memorable  words : 

A  new  code  of  maritime  laws.  .  .  .  What  is  this  but  the 
same  Jacobin  principle  which  proclaimed  the  Rights  of 
Man !  ...  It  is   in  violation  of  the  rights  of  England. 

This  has  been  the  keynote  of  the  opposition  which 
political  England  has  been  waging  for  more  than  a 
century  against  all  attempts  of  the  civilized  world  to 
establish  by  codified  law  the  rights  of  humanity.  It 
has  been  the  battle-cry  of  all  who  have  fought  against 
the  ratification  of  the  Hague  Convention  and  the 
Declaration  of  London,  and  is  given  a  prominent  place 
in  the  writings  of  the  protagonist  of  the  "  rights ''  of 
England,  T.  Gibson  Bowles,  M.  P.,  whose  Sea  Law 
and  Sea  Power  (London,  John  Murray,  19 10),  beat 
the  Naval  Prize  Bill,  without  which  ratification  of 
the  essential  conventions  of  the  second  Hague 
Conference  and  the  Declaration  of  London  became 
impossible. 

Since  Mr.  Bowles  was  the  leader  of  the  British 
movement,  whose  vote  against  the  proposal  prevailed 
in  Parliament,  he  may  be  quoted  with  the  assurance 


3i6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

that  in  so  doing  one  does  not  misrepresent  England's 
official  attitude;  for  he  spoke  with  the  authority  of  a 
man  who  had  long  been  in  Parliament  (from  1892  to 
1906,  and  again  in  1910),  and  who,  when  the  test  came, 
could  enforce  his  views  by  a  majority  vote  of  his 
colleagues. 

To  him,  England  is  the  world,  and  England  alone 
has  the  right  to  say  what  the  law  shall  be.  The 
assumption  of  the  rest  of  mankind  to  take  part  in  the 
deliberations  of  The  Hague  conferences  fills  him  with 
contemptuous  wrath,  for  in  his  eyes  the  delegates 
there  represented  nothing  but  a  **  cosmopolitan  mob  " 
(page  143).  The  results  of  The  Hague  conference 
and  the  Declaration  of  London  he  summed  up  in  this 
crisp  sentence: 

Great  Britain  had  been  hustled  out  of  her  prize  jurisdic- 
tion by  the  forty-five  of  The  Hague  conference ;  she  was 
now  to  be  hustled  into  a  new  law  of  nations  by  the  ten 
of  the  London  conference  —  as  was  in  the  end  duly  done, 
(p.  144.) 

When  will  the  world,  and  America  in  particular, 
learn  that  all  the  fair  words  of  the  literary  England 
count  for  nothing,  so  long  as  the  political  England,  that 
is  the  oligarchy  of  cold-blooded  money  kings,  who 
are  in  league  with  a  useless  aristocracy,  controls  the 
action  of  the  empire.  England  was  "hurtled  out"  of 
her  naval  "  rights  "  at  the  second  Hague  Conference  in 
favor  of  the  rights  of  humanity  and  neutral  freedom, 
although  "  the  merest  attention  will  show,  as  all  his- 
tory proves,  that  .  .  .  belligerent  rights  and  neutral 
freedom  are  opposed  to  and  mutually  destructive  each 
of  the  other"  (p.  172).  Since  this  is  the  case,  the 
only  thing  for  England  to  do  is  to  refuse  to  ratify  The 


The  Declaration  of  London  317 

Hague  Convention  and  the  Declaration  of  London,  and 
having  done  this  noble  deed,  go  even  farther  back,  and 
"  by  denouncing  the  Declaration  of  Paris,  resume  those 
powers  already  waived"  (p.  224). 

This  is  exactly  what  England  has  done.  As  has 
been  pointed  out,  she  has  declared  what  in  practice 
amounts  to  this,  that  she  considers  herself  no  longer 
bound  by  any  but  her  own  unwritten  law,  the  blessed 
law  that  through  800  years,  as  Bowles  says,  has  secured 
for  her  and  guaranteed  to  her  the  supremacy  of  thq 
world.  At  last  she  feels  the  sceptre  slipping  from 
her  hands,  and  unable  to  maintain  her  position  as  the 
sole  mistress  of  the  sea,  she  is  calling  the  world  to 
her  side.  She  does  not  say :  "  Help  me  to  maintain 
my  supremacy."  On  the  contrary,  she  today  denies 
ever  having  had  such  aspirations,  and  claims  that  she 
is  fighting  for  the  freedom  of  mankind,  because  "  Ger- 
many," she  says,  "is  reaching  for  the  mastery  of 
the  universe."  And  in  support  of  her  claim  she  refers 
America  to  Treitschke,  Bernhardi,  and  Nietzsche! 
Even  Viscount  Bryce  blows  in  the  same  trumpet,  and 
though  President  Hadley  of  Yale  has  punctured  the 
Treitschke  bubble,  and  France  herself  has  shown  up 
the  Nietzsche  nonsense  by  sending  M.  Henri  Lichten- 
burger  as  exchange  professor  to  Harvard  to  teach 
American  youths  the  nobilty  of  the  philosophy  which 
Germany  had  rejected,  and  although  it  is  an  established 
fact  that  Bernhardi  was  practically  unknown  in  Ger- 
many before  the  war,  England  goes  on  trying  to  fool 
America  and  to  frighten  her  with  a  bogey.  Is  it  really 
conceivable  that  Germany  should  have  aspired  after 
world  dominion,  and  the  world  not  have  known  it  be- 
fore this ! 


3i8  Germany  s  Point  of  View 

Germany  does  not  want  the  dominion  of  the  world, 
and  anybody  who  takes  the  least  pains  in  studying  the 
real  Germany  of  the  last  two  decades  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  discovering  this  for  himself.  But  why 
then,  it  will  be  asked,  did  she  plan  for  war?  And 
that  she  so  planned  we  have  on  the  excellent  authority 
of  Sir  Edward  Grey  himself,  whom  the  American 
press  quoted  as  recently  as  March  22  as  saying: 

We  now  know  that  Germany  had  prepared  for  war,  and 
only  those  who  have  planned  for  war  can  prepare  for  it. 

If  Sir  Edward  wants  to  know  why  Germany  pre- 
pared for  war  let  him  read  the  concluding  page  of 
T.  Gibson  Bowles's  book  mentioned  above  and  pub- 
lished in  1910.  The  page  is  headed :  "  Keep  the  Sword 
Sharp,''  and  reads  in  part  as  follows : 

And  now  one  last  word.  Despite  all  fair  words  spoken, 
the  deeds  done  during  the  last  fifty  years  throughout  the 
world  show  that  we  are  no  nearer  universal  peace  but 
farther  from  it;  that  if  peace  is  cried  more  loudly,  war 
is  more  constantly  and  secretly  prepared,  and  more  sud- 
denly sprung;  that  ambition  stalks  the  earth  no  less  pre- 
datory than  ever,  but  only  smoother  spoken,  and  that 
force  is  but  more  completely  cloaked  in  fraud.  Any  day 
we,  too,  with  little  or  no  warning,  may  have  to  fight  for 
our  own.  In  that  day  what  alone  will  avail  us  will  be 
our  sea  power  and  our  maritime  rights;  what  alone  will 
check  our  enemy,  their  full  exercise.  As  they  sufficed 
before,  even  against  all  Europe,  so  they  would  still  suf- 
fice [that  is,  if  the  Hague  Convention  and  the  Declara- 
tion of  London  were  not  ratified,  and  the  Declaration  of 
Paris  be  abrogated]. 

In  that  day  it  will  avail  us  nothing  that  we  have  the 
most  powerful  fleets,  if  by  our  own  folly  we  have  in 
advance  suffered  them  to  be  protocolized  and  declared 
out  of  their  effectual  powers  [that  is,  by  acknowledging 
that  not  only  England  but  also  humanity  and  neutrals 
have  rights]. 


The  Declaration  of  London  319 

Is  that  day  so  remote  that  we  need  now  and  henceforth 
think  only  of  our  neutral  profits  in  peace,  and  not  at  all 
of  our  risks,  rights,  and  powers  in  war? 

If  so,  why  all  these  dreadnoughts?  Why  this  present 
concentration  in  the  North  Sea  of  British  fleets  recalled 
from  all  quarters  of  the  globe? 

Is  that  day  so  far  off?  Is  it  not  rather  quite  mani- 
festly believed  by  those  who  know  most  and  are  most 
responsible,  to  be  near  at  hand? 

If  it  be,  then  to  part  with  any,  even  the  least  portion 
of  that  sea  power  whereon  alone  we  can  rely  for  our 
defence,  would  be  to  prepare  our  own  ruin. 

Not  now.     Not  now.     Not  yet. 

This  is  no  time  for  putting  off  any  of  our  harness  — 
rather  for  girding  it  on. 

With  these  words  T.  Gibson  Bowles  won  his  fight. 
The  Government  was  beaten,  and  Parliament  rejected 
the  naval  prize  bill,  and  thereby  made  impossible  the 
ratification  of  the  most  important  Hague  convention 
and  the  Declaration  of  London. 

"  For  only  those  who  had  planned  for  war  can 
prepare  for  it,"  says  Sir  Edward  Grey.  Was  this 
eloquent  appeal  of  a  member  of  Parliament,  was  the 
acceptance  of  his  views  by  a  majority  of  Parliament, 
was  the  ready  acquiescence  of  the  Government,  not 
in  substance  a  call  to  arms,  a  preparation  for  war? 
And  if  it  was,  who  planned  the  war?  Should  Ger- 
many see  England  tear  up  the  recent  agreements  of 
the  nations  as  to  what  is  right  and  wrong  among  men, 
that  in  the  war,  which  she  was  planning,  she  could 
make  wrong  "right"  again,  as  she  proudly  claimed 
she  had  done  for  eight  hundred  years  until  a  "  cosmo- 
politan mob  "  had  bidden  her  to  heed  at  least  some  of 
the  "  Rights  of  Man  "  —  should  Germany  see  all  this, 
and  hear  the  leader  of  the  parliamentary  majority 
warn  his  country  to  "keep  the  sword  sharp,"  and 


320  Germany's  Point  of  View 

should  she  herself  listen  to  the  siren  voice  of  a 
''smooth-spoken''  English  Secretary  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, and  let  her  own  sword  grow  dull  ? 

Let  anybody  read  Mr.  Bowles's  book  and,  knowing 
the  anti-German  feeling  fanned  daily  by  the  London 
Times  and  other  conscienceless  sheets,  ask  himself 
whether  the  whole  book  is  not  directed  against  Ger- 
many. And  if  it  is,  what  was  the  whole  purpose  of  the 
agitation  against  the  Declaration  of  London  except 
the  following  plea,  which  is  the  substance  of  everything 
Mr.  Bowles  wrote  ? 

We  English  have  grown  strong  by  the  unscrupulous 
use  of  our  sea-power.  Our  Government  thought  we 
were  so  strong  now  that  the  unfair  means  of  former 
centuries  could  be  discarded,  and  that  we  could  make 
allowances  also  to  the  rights  of  humanity  and  the  free- 
dom of  neutrals,  without  forfeiting  our  exclusive  posi- 
tion in  the  world.  We,  therefore,  signed  the  Declara- 
tion of  Paris  in  1856,  and  our  ministers  even  accepted 
an  International  Prize  Court  at  the  Hague,  and  estab- 
lished a  code  of  laws  for  the  guidance  of  this  court. 
They  believed  that  we  were  strong  enough  to  permit 
ourselves  this  luxury.  They  were  mistaken.  A  nation 
has  arisen  recently  so  strong  that  we  must  crush  her 
before  it  is  too  late.  Every  time  we  take  two  steps  in 
advance  she  takes  three  *  in  commercial  development. 
We  dare  not  set  our  house  in  order  as  she  has  done, 
for  that  would  dethrone  our  divinely  established  oli- 
garchy ;  nor  do  we  wish  to  work  as  hard  as  she,  but  if 
we  do  not,  we  are  hopelessly  outclassed  by  her  effi- 
ciency.    In  this  dilemma  there  is  only  one  way  out. 

*  See  the  author's  What  Germany  Wants,  Chapter  Five. 


The  Declaration  of  London  321 

Already  she  is  so  strong  and  the  man  who  steers  her 
course  is  so  just  and  peace  loving,  that  Russia  and 
France  do  not  dare  to  attack  her  alone.  England,  there- 
fore, will  have  to  join  in  the  fight.*  But  we  know  very 
well  that  in  such  a  fight  we  are  lost,  if  we  wage  it  ac- 
cording to  the  notions  of  the  civilized  world,  which  is 
strangely  affected  by  the  principle  of  the  Rights  of 
Man.  Therefore,  proud  sons  of  Albion,  rise  in  your 
might,  denounce  every  shred  of  concession  you  have 
made  to  the  "cosmopolitan  mob"  at  the  Hague,  take 
the  law  in  your  own  hands,  assert  your  privileges,  and 
since  you  will  never  be  able  to  down  Germany  by  fair 
means,  revert  to  the  wrongs  of  centuries  ago  which 
under  the  hallowed  title  of  the  Common  Law  of  Na- 
tions you  have  proclaimed  as  the  English  right. 

This  was  Mr.  Bowles'  plea  in  Parliament,  this  the 
rallying  cry  of  his  enthusiastic  friends,  and  this  the 
explanation  of  the  recent  action  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment. 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Bowles,  however,  it  must  be  said 
that,  judging  by  his  books,  he  would  be  the  first  to 
condemn  the  underhanded  way  in  which  the  British 
government  presumes  to  declare  a  blockade  without 
calling  it  a  blockade  in  the  accepted  sense  of  the  word, 
or  to  renounce  the  Declaration  of  London  without 
acknowledging  that  it  has  done  so,  or  to  disregard  the 
Declaration  of  Paris  when  England  is  in  honor  bound 
by  it.  On  this  latter  point  Mr.  Bowles  is  most  ex- 
plicit. Condemning  it  in  unmeasured  terms  as  an 
infringement  of  the  "  rights  '*  of  England,  and  a  perver- 

*  See  G.  K.  Chesterton  quoted  in  The  Fatherland,  April  14, 
1915,  p.  9. 


322  Germany's  Point  of  View 

sion  of  the  (English)  Law  of  Nations,  he  calls  for  its 
abrogation. 

In  order  to  effect  this  it  is  necessary  that  the  Declaration 
should  be  openly  denounced  and  repudiated;  for  until  it 
is  repudiated  it  must  be  held  as  binding.  Its  falsity  and 
the  want  of  previous  authority  and  subsequent  sanction 
are  not  sufficient  to  be  simply  disregarded  in  time  of  war ; 
they  are  more  than  sufficient  to  invite  its  denunciation  and 
repudiation  in  time  of  peace.  (T.  G.  Bowles :  The  Decla- 
ration of  Paris,  p.  210). 

Mr.  Bowles  may  be  savage,  but  he  is  honest.  He 
calls  a  spade  a  spade ;  and  after  wading  through  reams 
of  explanations  by  international  lawyers,  it  is  refresh- 
ing to  read  his  simple  and  clear  statement  of  those 
three  documents,  the  Declarations  of  Paris  and  Lon- 
don, and  the  Hague  Convention.    Briefly  it  is  this  : 

The  Declaration  of  Paris  was  the  first  curb  on  the 
arbitrary  exercise  of  the  sea-power  of  England. 

Then  came  the  Hague  Convention  of  1907,  which 
established  an  International  Prize  Court  as  a  Court 
of  Appeals  from  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  the 
several  countries.  There  were,  however,  no  codified 
laws  to  guide  the  judges  of  this  proposed  international 
court,  and  to  remedy  this  defect  the  British  Govern- 
ment invited  the  ten  largest  nations  to  a  conference 
in  London.  There  the  so-called  Declaration  of  London 
of  1909  was  agreed  upon  as  expressing  the  highest 
principles  of  right  and  wrong  in  maritime  war  on 
which  the  nations  could  agree. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  claimed  in  Parliament  that  by  the 
signature  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  plenipoten- 
tiary Great  Britain  had  become  committed  to  the  decla- 
ration, and  that  the  authority  of  Parliament  was  not 
needed.    The  Hague  convention,  however,  could  not  be 


The  Declaration  of  London  323 

ratified  until  Parliament  had  changed  the  law  of  the 
land,  because  it  established  an  appeal  from  the  courts 
of  England  which  the  existing  law  did  not  acknowl- 
edge. The  Naval  Prize  Bill  intended  to  do  this.  When 
Bowles  and  his  followers  beat  this  bill  their  claim 
was  this :  The  Declaration  of  London  made  laws  for 
the  International  Prize  Court,  which  was  provided  for 
by  the  Hague  Conference.  When  the  establishment  of 
this  court  was  made  impossible  by  Parliament,  so  far 
as  England  is  concerned,  the  laws  of  the  Declaration 
of  London  also  fell  by  the  wayside.  They  have  no 
binding  force  on  the  courts  of  England;  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  English  judges  are  not  paying  any 
attention  to  them  today. 

Why,  then,  one  may  ask,  keep  alive  the  fiction  of 
the  Declaration  of  London?  Probably  for  two  reasons. 
First,  few  people  have  the  leisure  or  the  training  which 
enable  them  to  go  through  a  mass  of  legal  technicalities 
to  rock  bottom.  They  will,  therefore,  be  easily  misled 
by  such  clever  lawyers  as,  for  instance,  Mr.  Frederic 
R.  Coudert,  to  believe  that  there  are  excuses  for  every 
glaring  infringement  of  the  Declaration.  If  England 
succeeds  in  carrying  this  war  through  without  being 
obliged  openly  to  renounce  the  Declaration,  she  may  in 
a  future  war,  in  which  she  happens  to  be  a  neutral, 
derive  all  the  benefits  which  the  Declaration  guarantees 
to  neutrals.  By  disregarding  it  when  she  is  at  war, 
and  insisting  on  its  observance  when  she  is  a  neutral, 
she  will  play  the  fine  old  game  "  heads  I  win,  tails  you 
lose."  She  has,  moreover,  the  conviction  that  the  only 
nation  which  could  call  her  bluff  is  America,  and  that 
America  will  not  do  it.  As  Viscount  Bryce  says  (the 
Boston  Herald,  March  22^  1915),  the  American  press 


324  Germany's  Point  of  View 

is  pro-British,  there  is  nothing  to  fear.  This  is  at  the 
present  moment  the  unfortunate,  nay  even  the  dis- 
astrous, state  of  affairs  that  a  number  of  people  are 
so  strongly  swayed  by  their  sympathies  with  Eng- 
land, France,  Russia,  Servia,  or  Belgium,  that  they 
are  not  even  willing  to  investigate  on  their  own  account 
the  enormous  harm  which  England  and  America  are 
doing  to  the  advance  of  honest  international  relations 
by  the  former's  reversion,  to  her  own  antiquated  law 
of  nations,  and  by  the  latter's  acquiescence  in  it. 

The  second  reason  why  Sir  Edward  Grey  does  not 
openly  renounce  the  Declaration  of  London,  although 
he  has  actually  done  so,  and  the  British  Courts  have 
indeed  openly  renounced  it,  is  this:  The  Declaration 
of  London,  Mr.  Bowles  believed,  legalized  the  traffic 
in  arms.  Renounce  the  Declaration  of  London,  and 
what  do  we  find?  Mr.  Bowles  has  covered  this  point 
at  length  on  pages  147,  et  seq.  of  his  book,  Sea  Law 
and  Sea  Power,    This  is  what  he  says : 

Great  Britain  has  always  denied  that  neutrals  have  or 
could  have  any  right  to  supply,  either  to  one  or  to  both 
belligerents,  that  assistance  in  the  war  which  is  provided 
by  furnishing  either  with  such  rrleans  of  resistance  or 
offence  as  are  called  *'  contraband."  She  has  always  de- 
clared the  law  of  nations  to  be  —  as,  in  fact,  it  is  —  that 
for  a  friend  of  both  belligerents  to  place  in  the  hands 
of  one  of  them  arms  against  the  other  is  an  abandonment 
of  the  neutrality  which  forbids  such  an  assistance  to 
either. 

This  law,  Mr.  Bowles  claims,  is  altered  by  the 
Declaration  of  London,  and,  taking  Sir  Edward  Grey 
to  task  for  it,  he  says : 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  Sir  Edward 
would  apply  to  individuals  the  same  principle  as  to  nations 


The  Declaration  of  London  325 

—  whether,  seeing  two  men  locked  in  a  deadly  struggle, 
he  would  sympathetically  consider  and  actively  support  a 
friend  of  both  who  should  furtively  hand  a  knife  to  one 
of  them. 

Thus  Mr.  Bowles!  And  what  is  America  doing 
about  it  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that  England  is  no  longer 
governed  by  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  that  this 
is  resulting  in  enormous  damage  to  America.  Unless 
relief  comes  soon  all  the  American  textile  mills  and 
leather  factories,  for  instance,  will  have  to  curtail  their 
work  and  eventually  stop.  As  a  huge  bribe  England 
is  placing  in  this  country  orders  for  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions of  dollars  worth  of  ammunition  for  herself  and 
her  allies. 

Why  then  does  America^  if  she  is  unwilling  to  stop 
the  nefarious  traffic  in  arms  for  moral  reasons,  not 
face  the  question  from  a  purely  legal  standpoint  and 
say  to  England : 

1.  If  you  are  governed  and  wish  us  to  be  governed  by 
the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  London,  which  per- 
mits the  exportation  of  arms  and  ammunition,  then  live 
up  to  its  stipulations,  and  open  the  sea  to  neutral  traffic. 
We  do  not  want  to  go  to  war  with  you  on  this  question, 
but  unless  you  obey  the  law  agreed  upon  as  binding  in 
the  Declaration  of  London  we  shall  force  you  to  do  so 
by  laying  an  embargo  on  arms. 

2.  If,  however,  you  prefer  to  follow  the  reasoning  of 
your  Parliament,  and  wish  to  declare  the  Declaration 
of  London  null  and  void  so  far  as  you  are  concerned 
because  your  Parliament  refused  you  the  ratification 
of  The  Hague  Convention,  then  we  regret  your  step, 
but  we  cannot  deny  you  a  certain  justification.  In  that 
case,  however,  your  own  Law  of  Nations,  as  recently 


326  Germany's  Point  of  View 

enunciated,  by  the  leader  of  your  parliamentary  major- 
ity, forbids  us  to  export  arms  and  ammunition  to  you, 
if  we  wish  to  remain  neutral.  And  since  we  are  re- 
solved to  remain  neutral,  we  shall  lay  an  embargo  on 
the  ammunition  of  arms. 

Why  does  the  American  Government  not  send  one 
or  the  other  of  these  answers  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment? Why  does  the  President  delay?  Sympathies 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  It  is  a  question  of 
right  and  wrong.  Will  America,  the  nation  that  has 
prided  herself  on  being  the  champion  of  right,  calmly 
submit  to  seeing  her  commerce  and  her  trade  spoiled 
and  the  rights  of  all  neutrals  trampled  under  foot, 
because  the  men  in  power  happen  to  prefer  the  English 
cause,  and  because  they  may  believe  that  an  embargo 
on  arms  would  stop  the  war  within  a  few  weeks,  in  the 
interest  of  Germany?  Has  America  fallen  so  low  that 
it  must  count  consequences  before  it  does  what  is 
right? 

Or  is  it  a  political  game,  and  do  the  leaders  believe 
that  a  majority  of  the  voters  are  anti-German,  because 
the  press  says  so?  If  they  do,  they  are  terribly  mis- 
taken. When  the  vote  was  taken  in  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature  recently  on  the  question  of  substituting  the 
minority  report  for  the  majority  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Federal  Relations,  which  had  been  against 
petitioning  Congress  to  lay  an  embargo  on  arms,  a 
change  of  only  six  votes  would  have  carried  the  ques- 
tioni.  Six  votes !  and  that  in  the  Massachusetts  Legis- 
lature and  in  spite  of  an  ardently  pro-English  press. 

Truth  is  the  daughter  of  Time;  and  Truth  will 
dawn  sometimes  also  on  the  men  in  charge  of  the 


The  Declaration  of  London  327 

news  columns  of  the  American  newspapers,  as  it  has 
begun  to  dawn  on  most  of  the  editorial  writers.  Eng- 
land is  no  saint.  America  will  commit  no  unforgive- 
able  sin  if  she  dares  to  speak  up  and  boldly  insists 
on  her  rights.  To  insist  on  her  rights,  moreover,  is 
her  duty,  for  she  cannot  be  neutral  if  she  waives  her 
rights  in  the  interest  of  one  of  the  belligerents.  Nof 
can  she  be  neutral  if  she  permits  England  to  revert 
to  her  own  "laws  of  nations,''  and  yet  —  to  speak 
with  Mr.  Bowles  —  "seeing  two  men  locked  in  a 
deadly  struggle  .  .  .  furtively  hands  a  knife  to  one 
of  them." 


CHAPTER  XXV 


BISMARCK 


WHEN  Bismarck  celebrated  his  eightieth  birthday 
and  several  thousand  students  had  gathered  in 
Friedrichsruh  to  pay  him  homage,  he  addressed  to 
them,  together  with  his  thanks,  a  brief  word  of  advice, 
in  the  course  of  which  he  said: 

For  man  cannot  create  or  direct  the  stream  of  time. 
He  can  sail  on  it  and  steer  his  craft  with  more  or  less 
skill.  He  may  be  stranded  and  shipwrecked,  or  make  a 
favorable  port. 

The  man  who  today  looks  back  over  the  life  of 
Bismarck  and,  knowing  all  the  marvelous  details  of 
his  career,  wishes  to  value  it  rightly,  will  hardly  be 
able  to  sum  up  its  lesson  in  a  crisper  sentence  than 
that  just  quoted.  With  all  his  strength  and  resource- 
fulness, Bismarck  never  forgot  that  he  was  a  man, 
and  that  it  was  not  given  to  mortals  to  create  or  direct 
the  stream  of  time.  He  was  thus  saved  the  needless 
labor  of  those  who  are  dissatisfied  with  the  world  in 
which  they  live  and  who,  in  their  great  eagerness  to 
improve  it,  forget  the  truth  of  the  old  maxim :  "  Do 
as  much  good  as  you  can,  but  take  care  that  in  so 
doing  you  do  no  harm." 

Bismarck  realized,  as  perhaps  no  one  so  clearly 
before  him,  that  there  is  no  today  without  a  yesterday, 
nor  a  tomorrow  without  a  today.  A  turbulent  past 
doers  not  go  over  into  a  peaceful  future  without  an 

328 


Bismarck  329 


intervening  period  of  mixed  security.  Social  injustice 
today,  if  ingrained  in  the  thoughts  of  the  people,  can- 
not be  transformed  into  the  millennium  by  the  passage 
of  laws  which  as  yet  run  counter  to  the  stream  of  time. 
Let  each  man  do  his  day's  work  as  the  days  come 
along,  untroubled  by  the  thought  that  tomorrow's  work 
might  be  more  congenial  or  more  expressive  of  his 
hopes  for  the  advance  of  humanity. 

Custom  has  hallowed  the  centenary  observances  of 
the  births  of  great  men,  and  even  if  no  great  war  were 
engaging  the  nations  of  Europe  the  German  people 
throughout  the  world  would  be  celebrating  the  hun- 
dredth birthday  of  Bismarck.  In  America,  too,  where 
many  milHons  of  Germans  are  living,  Bismarck  fes- 
tivities would  have  taken  place,  and  the  Americans  of 
German  descent,  warming  their  hearts  by  the  radiance 
of  his  strength  and  energy,  his  loyalty  and  readiness 
to  do  his  duty  at  whatever  cost,  would  have  turned 
to  the  task  of  deserving  in  the  future  even  more  fully 
than  in  the  past  the  praise,  often  bestowed  on  them,  of 
being  among  the  best  citizens  of  the  land. 

There  is  something  truly  Bismarckian  in  the  thought 
of  taking  conditions  as  they  are,  and  working  day  by 
day,  nay,  hour  by  hour,  with  a  well-defined  purpose, 
for  the  benefit  of  one's  country.  Nor  is  there  any 
reason  why  a  study  of  Bismarck  and  his  character, 
which  cannot  help  strengthening  the  patriotism  of  all 
who  are  capable  of  this  finest  of  human  emotions, 
should  be  influenced  by  the  high  passions  which  the 
war  has  aroused.  A  Bismarck  celebration,  focussed 
on  the  events  of  the  moment,  is  of  passing  value,  while 
a  thoughtful  survey  of  the  qualities  which  made  Bis- 
marck great  will  kindle  convictions  which,  translated 


330  Germany's  Point  of  View 

into  deeds,  may  result  in  inestimable  benefits  to  the 
country  in  which  countless  Germans  have  found  a  new 
home. 

And  nothing  could  have  pleased  Bismarck  better 
than  this,  for  he  once  said  to  a  company  of  Americans 
of  German  descent  who  had  gone  from  Chicago  to 
visit  him: 

I  should  dearly  like  to  see  the  United  States  of  America, 
which  of  all  foreign  countries  is  the  one  we  intuitively 
like  best.  To  judge  from  the  information  which  I  have 
received  from  former  immigrants,  they  find  themselves 
comfortable  and  feel  at  home  there.  This  cannot  be  said 
of  those  who  emigrate  to  other  countries.  I  will  ask  you 
to  give  three  cheers  for  your  new  country,  the  United 
States,  and  to  combine  with  them  one  for  your  own  father- 
land.    The  two  have  nothing  to  quarrel  about. 

The  reason  why  Bismarck  possessed  an  appreciative 
understanding  of  America  was  because  he  was  a 
thorough-going  democrat.  This  may  sound  strange  to 
those  who  remember  that  he  was  the  son  of  a  family 
of  the  nobility,  and  that  his  ancestors  had  been  land- 
holders in  Pomerania.  He  was,  therefore,  a  member 
of  the  "Junker"  class,  whose  ideals  have  been  repre- 
sented as  reactionary.  There  are  many  definitions  of 
democracy,  but  as  a  working  creed  none  is  perhaps 
better  than  the  conviction  which  Bismarck  held  through 
life,  and  which  he  expressed,  almost  on  the  first  page 
of  his  Reflections  and  Reminiscences  in  these  words: 
''  Birth  is  no  substitute  for  ability."  This  may  prop- 
erly be  called  one  of  the  chief  doctrines  of  his  life, 
from  which  no  considerations  could  swerve  him.  His 
common  sense,  however,  induced  him  to  put  by  its 
side  the  other  doctrine,  which  many  so-called  demo- 
crats have  forgotten,  that  *'  Since  birth  is  no  substitute 


Bismarck  331 


for  ability,  it  should  also  be  no  stumbling  block  in  the 
path  of  a  man  who  wishes  to  place  his  ability  in  the 
service  of  the  State." 

People  who  do  not  know  Germany  have  often  said 
that  the  rise  of  a  man  of  lowly  birth  was  impossible 
there.  They  have,  however,  forgotten  that  Alfred 
Krupp,  the  founder  of  the  largest  steel  industry,  and 
in  his  time  the  richest  man  of  Germany,  was  born  of 
very  lowly  parents.  In  the  commercial  and  industrial 
world  there  are  countless  instances  of  poor  boys  who 
have  risen  to  the  foremost  positions  in  the  empire. 
But  also  in  the  official  world  the  highest  positions  are 
not  so  hermetically  sealed  to  "  outsiders  "  as  foreigners 
have  assumed.  Heinrich  Stephan,  the  great  postmas- 
ter general  under  Bismarck  and  founder  of  the  World's 
Postal  Union,  was  the  son  of  a  poor  cobbler  in  Stolp, 
the  beautiful  little  town  in  Pomerania.  There  is  no 
better  instance  than  the  career  of  Stephan  to  prove 
that  Bismarck  knew  how  to  translate  his  maxim, 
"  Birth  is  no  substitute  for  ability,''  into  practice ;  and 
to  this  day  not  only  Germany  but  the  whole  world  is 
the  debtor  of  Bismarck  for  calHng  Stephan  to  the 
position  of  power  which  enabled  him  to  transform  the 
postal  service  of  his  country  and  of  all  other  civilized 
countries  as  well. 

Ability  counted  for  more  in  Bismarck's  eyes  than 
anything  else,  but  he  knew  that  one  can  rarely  count  on 
the  whole  of  a  man's  ability ;  for  if  you  wish  to  gauge 
a  man's  value  to  the  state,  you  must  deduct  from  his 
ability  his  vanity  and  count  only  on  the  balance. 
There  is  in  human  beings,  unfortunately,  so  much 
vanity,  that  the  available  balance  of  serviceability  is 
often  ridiculously  small.    To  say  that  Bismarck  pos- 


332  Germany's  Point  of  View 

sessed  no  vanity  at  all,  would  be  stretching  a  point, 
but  even  critical  observers  will  not  be  able  to  detect 
many  instances  where  his  vanity  influenced  his 
actions.  This,  in  fact,  is  one  of  the  remarkable  points 
of  his  career  that  his  decisions  in  momentous  questions 
were  wholly  impersonal.  Their  bearing  on  himself 
and  his  fortunes  had  no  interest  for  Bismarck.  From 
his  letters  we  know  the  warmth  of  his  emotions,  his 
love  for  his  family  and  his  home,  and  his  thorough 
enjoyment  of  the  pleasures  of  a  care-free  life.  Yet  in 
his  official  career,  those  who  knew  him  and  those  who 
today  read  his  speeches  and  the  records  of  his  achieve- 
ments cannot  detect  a  single  instance  where  a  personal 
wish  had  been  paramount  with  him. 

This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Bismarck  realized  that 
it  is  ideas  and  not  men  that  rule  the  world.  No  man, 
even  the  greatest,  can  serve  his  state  well,  unless  he 
has  placed  his  whole  strength  in  the  service  of  an 
idea,  and  is  willing  to  go  wherever  the  idea  leads. 
Men  who  hold  such  views  are  able  to  steer  a  straight 
course.  They  have  a  never-failing  compass  to  guide 
them.  Storms  and  sunny  weather  are  all  the  same  to 
them,  and  even  if  the  clouds  shut  down,  and  there  is 
no  outlook  ahead  of  them,  they  need  not  stop  or  fear, 
for  their  compass  is  true. 

The  great  idea,  to  the  service  of  which  Bismarck 
had  consecrated  his  life,  was  the  welfare  of  Germany. 
He  said  in  the  Reichstag  on  February  24,  1881 : 

I  have  ever  had  one  compass  only,  one  lode-star  by 
which  I  have  steered :  Salus  Puhlica,  the  welfare  of  the 
state.  Possibly  I  have  often  acted  rashly  and  hastily 
since  I  first  began  my  career,  but  whenever  I  had  time 
to  think  I  have  always  acted  according  to  one  question: 
What  is  useful,  advantageous,  and  right  for  my  father- 


Bismarck  333 


land  and  for  the  German  nation?  .  .  .  Of  the  structure  of 
the  German  Empire  and  the  union  of  the  German  nation 
I  demand  that  they  be  free  and  unassailable.  ...  I  have 
given  to  its  creation  and  growth  my  entire  strength  from 
the  very  beginning.  And  if  you  point  to  a  single  moment 
when  I  have  not  steered  by  this  direction  of  the  compass- 
needle,  you  may  perhaps  prove  that  I  have  erred,  but  you 
cannot  prove  that  I  have  for  one  moment  lost  sight  of  the 
national  goal. 

Bismarck  could  not  have  steered  his  straight  and 
happy  course  if  he  had  not  had  implicit  faith  in  his 
compass.  All  big  men  are  men  of  faith,  and  therefore 
in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word  religious.  Bismarck 
was  a  Protestant  by  training  and  adhered  to  this 
church  through  life,  but  he  had  no  quarrel  to  find  with 
those  who  looked  at  heaven  from  a  different  angle. 
His  long  continued  struggle  against  the  pope  was  in 
no  way  a  fight  against  Catholicism,  but  only  a  revolt 
against  the  political  encroachment  on  the  functions  of 
the  state  by  one  of  the  prominent  sects.  The  Germans 
fully  realized  this,  even  the  Catholics  after  a  while,  and 
his  few  public  references  to  the  Deity  were  under- 
stood by  all  as  reverent  utterances  of  a  devout  soul. 
"We  Germans  fear  God,  naught  else  in  the  world," 
struck  a  responsive  chord  in  every  German  heart,  and 
has  in  dark  hours  given  renewed  strength  and  faith  to 
countless  numbers  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

No  truly  religious  man  can  be  obstinate,  for  in 
weighty  matters  he  is  too  deeply  conscious  of  his  own 
personal  fallibility.  He  is,  therefore,  ever  ready  to 
learn  and  consequently  not  afraid  of  changing  his 
mind.'  In  the  speech  quoted  above  Bismarck  went  on 
to  say : 

If  a  man  tells  me,  "Twenty  years  ago  you  held  the 
same  views  as  I ;  I  still  hold  them,  but  you  have  changed 


334  Germany's  Point  of  View 

yours,"  I  reply:  "You  see,  my  friend,  I  was  as  clever 
as  you  are  today,  twenty  years  ago.  Today  I  know  more, 
for  I  have  learned  things  in  these  twenty  years."  And, 
gentlemen,  there  is  justice  in  the  remark  that  the  man 
who  does  not  learn  fails  to  progress  and  cannot  keep 
abreast  of  his  time.  If  people  keep  rooted  in  the  posi- 
tions once  occupied  they  are  falling  behind. 

Bismarck  never  remained  rooted  in  one  spot,  he 
alv^ays  progressed,  and,  keeping  abreast  of  his  time, 
fortunately  did  not  try  to  outrun  it.  From  this  danger, 
which  has  beset  so  many  enthusiasts,  he  was  preserved 
by  the  accuracy  of  his  studies  and  his  marvelous  mem- 
ory. Even  a  casual  glance  through  his  speeches  and 
letters  reveals  a  stupendous  knowledge  of  history,  not 
only  of  Germany  but  also  of  the  other  important  coun- 
tries. Nor  was  this  knowledge  merely  scientific,  for 
he  spoke  and  quoted  with  ease  English,  French,  and 
Russian,  and  showed  that  he  had  penetrated  to  the 
spirit  of  these  several  countries.  Greek  and  Latin, 
especially  the  latter,  were  always  at  his  tongue's  end, 
and  the  appropriateness  of  his  quotations  from  ancient 
and  modern  literature  revealed  the  wide  range  of  his 
thoughts.  It  may,  in  fact,  be  truly  said  of  him  that 
he  knew  mankind. 

This  knowledge  preserved  him  from  making  the 
mistake  which  has  been  characteristic  of  men  since  the 
world  began,  of  believing  that  a  thing  is  easy  because 
at  first  glance  it  seems  easy.  He  once  expressed  this 
in  a  beautiful  simile  when  a  learned  professor  of  polit- 
ical science  had  urged  a  course  upon  him  in  the 
Reichstag  which  he  considered  impossible. 

The  conception  which  the  previous  speaker  has  of  the 
poHtics  of  Europe  [Bismarck  said,  December  21,  1863] 
reminds   me  of  a  man   from   the  plains   who   is   on   his 


Bismarck  335 


first  journey  to  the  mountains.  When  he  sees  a  huge 
elevation  loom  up  before  him,  nothing  seems  easier  than 
to  climb  it.  He  does  not  even  think  that  he  v^ill  need 
a  guide,  for  the  mountain  is  in  plain  sight,  and  the  road 
to  it  apparently  without  obstacles.  But  v^hen  he  starts, 
he  soon  comes  upon  ravines  and  crevasses  which  not  even 
the  best  of  speeches  will  help  him  to  cross. 

Bismarck  always  saw  the  obstacles  in  his  path,  and 
while  he  well  knew  that  they  could  not  be  overcome  by 
good  intentions  alone,  he  never  permitted  them  to  alter 
his  aims.  He  was  an  indefatigable  student  of  nature, 
and  knew  that  in  nature  big  things  are  not  created  big, 
but  grow  from  little  things.  "  The  child  must  be  born 
small,"  he  once  said,  **  if  it  is  to  be  born  at  all."  This 
was  his  reply  to  a  few  enthusiastic  friends  of  the  Gov- 
ernment who  found  fault  with  the  modest  demands 
of  the  exchequer  of  the  empire  which  Bismarck  made 
in  introducing  the  first  of  that  wonderful  welfare  legis- 
lation which  swept  poverty  from  the  country,  and  has 
since  grown  to  be  a  tree  of  such  grandeur  that  in  its 
shade  the  whole  world  is  listening  for  advice. 

The  whole  world  is  not  quite  correct,  for  the  Massa- 
chusetts Legislature  has  only  recently  rejected  the 
old-age  pension  bill  by  a  vote  of  97  to  121,  and  con- 
sidered the  wonderful  message  of  Bismarck's  prac- 
tical Christianity  far  too  advanced  for  Massachusetts. 
In  Germany,  however,  Bismarck  introduced  the  first 
of  these  laws  thirty-four  years  ago,  on  March  2,  1881. 

At  first  he  met  violent  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
Liberal  party,  which  represented  the  business  men  of 
Germany.  They  pointed  with  pride  to  the  flourishing 
industries  of  England,  and  quoted  endlessly  from  Eng- 
lish economic  writers.  Finally  Bismarck  replied  to 
one  of  their  spokesmen  as  follows : 


336  Germany's  Point  of  View 

The  representative  has  called  attention  to  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  State  for  everything  it  does  in  the  field  on 
which  it  is  entering  today.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  feel  that 
the  State  may  become  responsible  also  for  the  things  it 
does  not  do.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  laissez  faire,  laissez 
alles  theory,  and  the  unadulterated  political  theories  of 
Manchester,  such  as  "  let  each  one  do  as  he  chooses,  and 
see  how  he  fares,"  or  "  who  is  not  strong  enough  to 
stand,  let  him  be  crushed,"  or  "  he  who  has  will  receive, 
and  he  who  has  not,  from  him  let  us  take,"  can  be  prac- 
ticed in  any  State.  .  .  .  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that 
those  who  shudder  at  the  State  exerting  its  influence  for 
the  protection  of  the  weaker  brethren,  themselves  intend 
to  capitalize  their  strength  —  be  it  financial,  rhetorical,  or 
what  not  —  that  they  may  gain  a  following,  or  oppress  the 
rest,  or  smooth  their  own  way  to  party  control. 

The  loathing  which  swept  over  Germany  for  those 
who  fought  tooth  and  nail  against  the  introduction  of 
even  the  modest  beginning  of  the  German  welfare 
legislation,  and  who  defended  every  inch  of  the  ground, 
which  they  saw  slipping  from  under  them,  with  Eng- 
lish arguments,  is  doubtless  partly  to  blame  for  the 
readiness  with  which  hatred  of  England  and  her  merci- 
less ways  has  sprung  up  in  German  hearts.  For  the 
leaders  of  modern  Germany  were  boys  in  those  days 
when  hardly  a  self-respecting  family  from  Memel  to 
the  Rhine  and  from  the  Baltic  to  the  Bavarian  Alps 
did  not  shudder  at  the  inhuman  doctrines  of  Manches- 
ter, which  every  daily  paper  quoted  as  having  been 
advanced  in  the  Riechstag  against  the  bill.  The  old 
Emperor  William  i,  moreover,  it  was  known,  had  set 
his  heart  on  this  legislation.  Bismarck  defended  it 
with  titanic  eloquence. 

And  Bismarck  won.  His  arguments  were  largely 
two;  first,  it  is  the  happy  privilege  of  a  state  which 
can  afford  it  to  aid  "the  weaker  brethren,"  for 


Bismarck         '  337 


we  are  filled  with  satisfaction  at  the  thought  that  we  may 
be  able  to  do  something  in  the  legislature  for  the  less  for- 
tunate classes,  and  to  wrest  them,  if  you  will  grant  the 
money,  from  the  evil  influences  of  place-hunters  whose 
eloquence  is  too  much  for  their  intelligence. 

His  second  and  most  forceful  argument,  however, 
was  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  provide  ade- 
quately for  its  poor.    He  said: 

Our  present  poor  laws  keep  the  injured  laboring  man 
from  starvation  .  .  .  According  to  the  law,  at  least,  no- 
body need  starve.  Whether  in  reality  this  never  happens, 
I  do  not  know.  But  this  is  not  enough  to  let  the  men 
look  contentedly  into  the  future,  and  to  their  own  old 
age.  The  present  bill  intends  to  keep  the  sense  of  human 
dignity  alive  which  even  the  poorest  German  should 
enjoy!  ...  I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  a  State 
.  .  .  which  possesses  among  its  citizens  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  sincere  adherents  of  the  Christian  religion, 
should  do  for  the  poor,  the  weak,  and  the  old  much  more 
than  this  bill  demands  —  as  much  as  I  hope  to  be  able  to 
ask  of  you  next  year.  And  such  a  State,  especially  when 
it  wishes  to  demonstrate  its  practical  Christianity,  should 
not  refuse  our  demands  —  for  its  own  sake  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  poor! 

It  was  characteristic  of  Bismarck  that  he  based  his 
main  argument  in  this  great  parliamentary  struggle 
on  the  German  sense  of  duty.  He  had  perceived  the 
truths  of  life  more  accurately  than  many  of  his  con- 
temporaries. No  serious  student  of  Bismarck's  life 
and  achievements  can  fail  to  learn  from  them  lessons 
for  the  guidance  of  his  own  life.  There  is,  however, 
one  star  in  Bismarck's  career  which  shines  with  a 
brighter  and  steadier  light  than  all  the  rest,  and  this 
is  his  sense  of  duty.  The  finer  lessons  of  his  life  can- 
not be  learned  by  all,  but  there  is  not  a  man  who 
cannot  resolve  to  adopt  for  himself  Bismarck's  own 
motto :    "  I  am  doing  my  duty,  let  come  what  may ! " 


CHAPTER  XXVI 


BULGARIA 


WHEN  Bulgaria,  Greece,  and  Servia  combined 
forces  in  the  first  Balkan  war  they  forgot,  over 
the  prospect  of  gain,  that  they  really  hated  each  other 
worse  than  any  of  them  hated  the  Turks,  and  when 
they  felt  cheated,  the  ones  by  the  others,  at  the  treaty 
of  peace,  and  began  to  fight  each  other  in  the  second 
Balkan  war,  they  merely  reverted  to  their  natural  state 
of  mutual  hate  and  suspicion.  This  condition  exists 
today.  To  assume  that  the  Bulgars  would  fight  for 
the  Servs  or  the  Russians  for  love  and  because  they 
are  all  said  to  be  Slavs,  is  about  as  reasonable  as  to 
count  on  a  grand  alliance  of  cats  and  dogs  because 
they  are  all  quadrupeds. 

The  Bulgars  are  a  Tartar  race,  mixed,  to  be  sure, 
with  the  Slavs  of  the  country  they  conquered.  They 
lost  in  this  process  their  original  language  and  adopted 
that  of  their  victims,  which  is  akin  to  the  Servian 
tongue.  But  though  they  took  the  speech  of  the  people 
they  conquered,  they  never  forgot  that  the  Bulgars 
were  the  victors  and  the  resident  Slavs  their  slaves. 
To  this  day  the  Bulgars  deem  it  an  arrant  assumption 
if  the  Servians  claim  equality  with  them.  For  the 
justice  of  their  view,  they  point  to  their  own  well-regu- 
lated state  and  the  loosely  knit  community,  called 
Servia,  where  murderers  and  pirates  go  unpunished 
and  even  the  highest  officials  are  openly  in  the  pay  of 
foreign  sovereigns. 

338 


Bulgaria  339 


The  racial  contempt,  moreover,  which  the  Bulgars 
feel  for  the  Servians  is  intensified  by  the  difference  in 
the  religion  of  the  two  people;  a  difference  which  ex- 
ists less  in  the  dogma  than  in  the  administration  of  the 
church.  The  Bulgarian  church  is  independent,  with 
its  separate  pope,  the  so-called  exarch,  while  the  Ser- 
vians have  never  been  able  to  free  themselves  from 
the  authority  of  the  Greek  patriarch.  Dogmatically, 
both  churches  are  what  is  called  Greek  orthodox ;  that 
is,  adherents  of  the  eastern  wing  of  the  Christian 
church,  which  was  divided  when  the  split  came,  and  the 
western  part  received  the  name  of  Roman  Catholic. 

When  the  Turks  captured  Constantinople,  and  the 
whole  eastern  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  they  decided 
to  deal  with  their  Christian  subjects,  in  matters  spirit- 
ual, through  one  authority  only,  and  since  their  Greek 
subjects  happened  to  be  most  prominent,  they  decided 
on  the  chief  pope  of  the  Greeks,  the  so-called  patriarch. 
In  spiritual  matters  his  word  was  supreme  throughout 
the  East  until  the  Russians,  who  profess  the  same 
faith,  cut  this  bond  and  vested  their  highest  ecclesias- 
tical office  in  the  Czar :  In  Turkey,  however,  Bulgars, 
Servs,  Greeks,  and  all  other  Christians  remained  sub- 
ject to  the  Greek  patriarch. 

An  analogous  development  took  place  in  the  west 
of  Europe,  for  theoretically  the  whole  West  remained 
one  state,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  German  nation- 
ality. Only  England  stood  outside  this  union,  and 
when  she  renounced  the  spiritual  sovereignty  of  the 
pope  she  merely  did  what  Russia  had  done,  she  nation- 
alized her  church.  There  is  much  justification  for 
the  contention  of  those  priests  of  the  Anglican  High 
Church  who  hold  that  their  church  is  still  catholic. 


340  Germany's  Point  of  View 

In  the  East  the  Turkish  yoke  suppressed  all  the 
national  aspirations  of  the  several  races  which  made 
up  the  Ottoman  Empire,  while  in  the  West  the  un- 
wieldy state  was  broken  up  into  individual  nations 
largely  with  the  help  of  the  spiritual  head  of  the 
church  in  Rome.  The  secular  rulers  were,  in  the  long 
run,  not  the  equals  of  the  popes.  As  a  result,  the  pow- 
ers of  the  emperors  were  restricted,  while  those  of 
the  popes  were  extended.  The  willingness  with  which 
the  several  nations  submitted  to  the  spiritual  powers 
of  a  chief  bishop,  who  had  no  connection  with  them 
nationally,  testifies  both  to  the  intensity  of  the  west- 
ern spiritual  life  and  to  the  bigness  of  the  men  who 
guided  it. 

It  was  very  different  in  the  East,  where  the  Turkish 
Dominion  had  not  only  repressed  all  forceful  nation- 
alistic instincts,  but  where  also  the  spiritual  authority 
dreaded  every  manifestation  of  these  instincts.  The 
patriar-chs,  unlike  the  popes,  were  continually  inferior 
to  the  secular  rulers,  and  realized  that  their  sphere  of 
influence  would  be  lessened  as  soon  as  one  or  the  other 
of  the  subjugated  nationalities  should  establish  its 
independence. 

The  spirit  of  nationality,  however,  cannot  be  killed. 
In  primitive  people  it  may  be  repressed  for  a  time,  but 
unless  history  lies  it  dies  only  in  effete  individuals  of 
an  artificially  high  civilization.  The  three  big  Chris- 
tian nations,  therefore,  which  were  contained  in  the 
Turkish  Empire,  the  Greeks,  the  Bulgars,  and  the 
Servs,  never  entirely  forgot  their  dreams,  or,  as  occa- 
sional leaders  called  it,  the  goal  of  their  existence. 

The  Greeks  were  the  strongest,  and  had  a  great 
advantage  because  they  supplied  the  spiritual  leaders 


Bulgaria  341 


through  whom  alone  the  Turks  deigned  to  communi- 
cate with  their  Christian  subjects.  Many  of  these 
Greek  patriarchs  were  undoubtedly  noble  administra- 
tors of  their  trust,  but  all  of  them  together  could  not 
resist  the  temptation  of  forcing  their  own  language 
upon  the  Christians  under  their  charge.  The  few 
schools  which  existed  were  ecclesiastical  schools,  and 
it  is  a  marvel  of  history  that  neither  the  Bulgars  nor 
the  Servs  lost  the  remnants  of  their  individuality, 
ground  as  they  were  between  the  upper  millstone  of 
Turkish  rule  and  the  nether  stone  of  Greek  spiritual 
authority.  It  was,  perhaps,  the  hopelessness  of  a  re- 
volt against  the  Turks  which  drove  all  their  latent  feel- 
ings of  nationality  into  the  one  endeavor  to  preserve 
their  language  against  the  Greek  influences  of  their 
church. 

So  long  as  the  three  races  were  equally  oppressed  by 
the  Turks  the  common  bond  of  misery  prevented  ex- 
cesses, but  when  Greece  had  won  her  political  inde- 
pendence, early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  conditions 
became  intolerable,  especially  for  the  prouder  of  the 
remaining  victims  —  the  Bulgars.  In  consequence 
the  various  Bulgarian-speaking  parishes  established 
closer  relations  between  themselves,  without  at  first 
aiming  at  a  spiritual  independence  from  the  Greek 
patriarch.  The  earliest  union  of  Bulgarian  parishes* 
took  place  in  Ueskiib  in  1833.  In  the  next  year  Weles 
and  Samakow  joined  the  movement,  and  in  1840  Wid- 
din,  Tirnowo,  and  Philippopel  were  added  to  the  list. 

The  beginning  was  thus  made  of  a  distinctively  na- 

*  This  account  of  the  history  of  Bulgaria  is  based  on  Rich- 
ard von  Mach's  Der  Machtbereich  des  bulgarischen  exarchats 
in  der  Turkei,  Leipzig,  1906.  English  translation,  London, 
T.  Fisher  Unwin. 


342  Germany's  Point  of  View 

tionalistic  movement,  and  when  the  successes  of  Rus- 
sia against  Turkey  opened  the  eyes  of  the  more  far- 
seeing  leaders  to  the  possibiHty  of  a  future  state,  ever 
more  parishes  were  asked  to  join  and  gladly  accepted 
the  invitation.  The  movement  spread,  therefore,  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  those  parts  where  only  Bulgarians 
live  to  the  provinces  of  Thrace  and  Macedonia,  where 
Bulgarian,  Greek,  and  Servian  parishes  were  found 
side  by  side,  and  where  often  in  individual  parishes, 
not  the  number  of  communicants  but  the  zeal  of  one 
or  the  other  fraction  made  it  a  Bulgarian  or  a  Servian 
or  a  Greek  parish.  In  disputed  cases,  of  course,  the 
Greek  patriarch  was  apt  to  rule  in  favor  of  his  own 
people,  and  to  decree  that  the  parish  was  Greek,  and 
that  the  church  services  should  be  conducted,  and  the 
children  be  taught,  in  Greek.  This  aroused  much  bit- 
terness, and  finally  resulted  in  a  petition  to  the  sultan 
that  a  special  head  of  the  Bulgarian  parishes  should  be 
appointed.  This  bishop  of  the  Bulgars  was  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  patriarch.  In  his  own  province,  however, 
he  should  be  supreme. 

In  the  meanwhile,  however,  the  Greek  patriarch, 
whose  official  residence  had  continued  to  be  Constan- 
tinople, had  grown  much  too  strong  for  the  liking  of 
the  sultan,  for  he  had  drawn  added  strength  not  only 
from  his  own  independent  country,  but  also  from  the 
backers  of  that  country,  especially  England.  The 
Turkish  maxim  for  the  preservation  of  a  comfortable 
peace  at  home  had  always  been  to  play  off  the  next 
strongest  party  against  the  strongest.  On  March  ii, 
1870,  therefore,  the  sultan  issued  his  firman  establish- 
ing the  Bulgarian  Exarchate,  comprising  about  six- 
teen dioceses,  and  decreeing  that  other  parishes  might 


Bulgaria  343 


join,  "if  all  or  at  least  two-thirds  of  all  the  orthodox 
inhabitants ''  of  a  village  or  city  should  so  vote. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  dioceses  mentioned  in  the 
firman  comprise  the  whole  of  the  original  principality 
of  Bulgaria,  East  Roumelia,  and  the  districts  of  Nish 
and  Pirot.  In  these  latter  a  considerable  number  of 
the  inhabitants  are  Servians.  The  latter,  therefore, 
felt  deeply  aggrieved,  and  since  the  firman  had  been 
issued  under  the  influence  of  Russia,  saw  in  it  an  evi- 
dence of  Russian  hostility  toward  themselves  and 
favoritism  shown  to  Bulgaria.  In  the  treaty  of  Ber- 
lin, however,  these  two  districts  in  their  entirety  were 
unjustly  added  to  Servia. 

The  patriarch  himself  openly  declared  that  he 
refused  to  recognize  the  Bulgarian  Exarchate,  and 
nothing  could  have  been  more  advantageous  for  the 
Bulgarians,  for  the  obstinacy  of  the  patriarch  led  to 
a  complete  break  between  himself  and  the  Bulgarian 
bishops,  which  resulted  in  the  independence  of  their 
church.  At  first  it  had  not  occurred  to  them  that  a 
complete  separation  from  the  Greek  Church  was  meant 
or  even  possible.  After  the  several  eparchies,  that  is, 
dioceses,  had  been  organized,  three  of  the  Bulgarian 
bishops  went  to  Constantinople  to  pay  their  respects 
to  the  patriarch  and  to  ask  his  permission  to  conduct 
divine  service  in  the  Bulgarian  church  in  the  city. 
The  patriarch  refused  to  receive  them  and  forbade  the 
service. 

Trusting  to  the  promises  of  the  government,  the 
bishops  nevertheless  conducted  the  service  in  their 
church,  whereupon  the  patriarch  requested  the  sultan 
to  banish  the  bishops  and  to  close  the  church.  This 
the  sultan  actually  did,  possibly  because  he  did  not 


344  Germany's  Point  of   View 

wish  to  have  the  Bulgarians  grow  too  strong,  possibly 
because  he  habitually  followed  a  zig-zag  policy.  At 
any  rate,  he  soon  changed  his  mind  again,  recalled 
the  bishops,  and  even  commanded  them  to  proceed  to 
the  election  of  the  first  exarch.  This  was  in  1872. 
The  choice  fell  on  Antim,  Bishop  of  Widdin,  whose 
election  was  ratified  by  the  sultan  on  February  26. 
A  few  weeks  later  he  arrived  in  Constantinople,  where 
not  only  the  Prime  Minister,  but  the  sultan  himself, 
received  him  with  marks  of  great  distinction,  on 
April  II. 

The  Bulgarian  Church  had  thus  been  established, 
but  its  head  was  still  subject  to  the  Greek  patriarch. 
The  new  exarch,  therefore,  called  on  his  superior, 
who,  however,  refused  to  receive  him,  although  he 
repeated  his  call  three  times.  The  patriarch  in  his 
turn  made  two  categoric  demands  ;  first,  that  the  exarch 
drop  his  title  and  call  himself  Bishop  of  Widdin ;  and, 
secondly,  that  the  exarchate  be  not  called  the  Bul- 
garian but  the  Hamos  Exarchate.  Both  demands  were 
declined,  and  when  the  patriarch  remained  obdurate, 
the  exarch  conducted  divine  service  in  the  Bulgarian 
church,  without  permission,  on  April  23,  and  on 
May  II  read  a  proclamation  to  the  people  decreeing 
the  independence  of  the  Bulgarian  Church. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Bulgarian  people 
as  a  whole,  who  had  been  brought  up  to  see  in  the 
patriarch  their  spiritual  leader,  would  have  followed 
the  exarch  in  his  bold  course  of  national  independ- 
ence, if  the  patriarch  had  not  committed  his  final 
blunder  and  excommunicated  every  member  of  the 
exarchate,  and  declared  the  whole  Bulgarian  clergy 
and  laity  heretics,  on  September  16,  1872. 


Bulgaria  345 


This  is  the  state  of  the  Bulgarian  Church  today 
so  far  as  the  patriarch  and  the  Greek  Church,  to 
which  the  Servs  also  belong,  is  concerned.  Eastern 
people  take  their  religion  seriously.  The  Bulgars  deny 
the  right  of  the  patriarch  to  excommunicate  them, 
because  he  had  no  further  authority  over  them  after 
the  decree  of  separation,  but  they  feel  excessively 
bitter  at  his  having  taken  this  step.  The  Greeks  and 
Servs,  however,  look  upon  the  Bulgarians  as  heretics 
and  justly  excommunicated.  One  must  have  lived  in 
Catholic  countries  to  know  what  this  means.  A  man 
who  is  excommunicated  is  unclean  and  despicable,  and 
nobody  owes  him  a  duty.  Perhaps  this  thought  eased 
the  conscience  of  the  Greeks  and  the  Servs,  when  they 
cheated  the  Bulgarians  after  the  first  Balkan  war  out 
of  those  portions  of  Macedonia  which  had  been  agreed 
upon  as  their  share  of  the  booty.  The  systematic 
way  in  which  this  was  done  is  portrayed  in  the  report 
on  the  Balkan  wars  issued  by  the  international  com- 
mission of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  of  International 
Peace  (1914).  When  the  Servians  entered  Macedonia 
they  compelled  the  Bulgarian  parishes  to  sign  a  paper 
like  the  following :  * 

In  order  that  once  for  all  the  question  of  our  national 
feeling  may  be  firmly  established,  and  that  a  serious  error 
may  at  the  same  time  be  wholly  refuted,  we,  Slavs  of 
Bitolia,  hitherto  attached  to  the  exarchy,  do  today,  being 
assembled  in  the  Orthodox  church  of  St.  Wedelia,  state  as 
follows :  First,  that  we  are  familiar  from  history  that  we 
have  been  Servians  since  ancient  times,  and  that  the  Turks 
conquered  the  countries  which  we  now  inhabit  from  the 
Servians  five  and  a  half  centuries  ago.  Second,  that  there 
is  no  difference  either  in  nationality  or  in  faith,  or  in  lan- 

*  International  Commission  to  Enquire  Into  the  Causes  and 
Conduct  of  the  Balkan  Wars.  Report,  1914,  p.  176,  Carnegie 
Endowment  for  International  Peace. 


346  Germany's  Point  of  View 

guage,  or  in  customs  between  us  and  the  Servians,  as  is 
proved  by  many  remembrances  and  by  the  Servian  schools, 
which  were  the  only  ones  in  existence  in  these  lands  up 
to  the  time  of  the  Turco-Servian  war  of  1876-78.  Third, 
that  our  ancestors  were,  and  that  we  are,  called  Servians, 
but  that  under  the  recent  influence  of  Bulgarian  propa- 
ganda, and  above  all  under  the  terror  caused  by  the  Comi- 
tadjis,  we  have,  in  quite  recent  times,  begun  to  turn  our 
eyes  to  the  Bulgarians,  in  the  hope  that,  thanks  to  their 
preponderance  in  what  was  once  the  Turkish  kingdom, 
they  would  be  better  able  than  the  Servians  to  free  us 
from  our  servitude.  Fourth,  that  in  the  last  war  with  the 
Turks,  the  Bulgarians  instead  of  assisting  and  freeing  us, 
appropriated  Thrace  and  liberated  non-Slav  populations. 
Fifth,  that  the  Servians  have,  by  superhuman  efforts  and 
enormous  sacrifices,  taken  these  lands  unassisted  and  so 
put  an  end  to  our  servitude.  Sixth,  that  both  before  and 
after  the  war  the  Servians  treated  us  really  as  their 
brothers,  while  on  the  contrary  the  Bulgarians  were  at 
pains  to  separate  us  from  our  liberators.  Seventh,  that  on 
the  seventeenth  of  last  month  the  Bulgarians  attacked  the 
Servian  army,  which  shed  its  blood  for  them  before 
Adrianople;  an  attack  for  which  the  whole  civilized  world 
condemns  them.  Eighth,  that  the  Bulgarians  desired  to 
expose  the  people  of  these  countries  to  new  misfortunes 
and  to  destruction  by  their  attempt  at  sending  hither  bands 
of  brigands  to  burn  the  villages  and  pillage  the  people. 
Wherefore,  we  declare  our  entire  solidarity  with  our 
Servian  brothers  and  liberators;  with  them  we  will  work 
in  the  future,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  to  strengthen  our  coun- 
try —  Greater  Servia. 

People  who  refused  to  sign  such  declarations  v^ere 
subjected  to  physical  suffering  and  expelled  from  the 
country,  as  were  also  all  the  bishops  and  teachers  of 
the  Bulgarian  Exarchate.  All  the  Bulgarian  schools 
were  closed  and  parents  forced  to  send  their  children 
to  the  Servian  schools,  while  strict  orders  were  issued 
that  children  should  not  be  sent  out  of  the  country  to 
be  educated  elsewhere. 

The  pages  of  the  Carnegie  Report  are  open  to  all, 


Bulgaria  347 


and  it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  many  instances 
of  inhuman  cruelty  with  which  the  Servians  perse- 
cuted every  Bulgar  in  the  newly  conquered  provinces. 
The  result  was,  on  paper,  a  loyal  population  of  ardent 
believers  in  Greater  Servia ;  in  fact,  however,  a  smoul- 
dering hate  and  contempt  for  the  Servs  in  every  Bulgar 
heart. 

Nor  are  the  Bulgars  whitewashed  in  the  report  by 
any  means.  They,  too,  were  guilty,  it  seems,  of  a 
conduct  that  shocked  the  gentlemanly  investigators; 
but  that,  stripped  of  many  exaggerations,  was  no 
surprise  to  those  who  knew  the  Balkans. 

The  Greeks,  however,  whose  closer  contact  with  the 
more  civilized  nations  in  recent  years  had  established 
the  presumption  that  they  had  completely  outgrown  the 
savage  tendencies  which  characterize  the  Servians,  sur- 
prised the  world  by  a  ferocity  and  hatred  of  the  Bul- 
gars such  as  only  the  religious  conflicts  of  centuries 
ago  exhibit.  Quoting  from  documents  in  its  posses- 
sion, the  Carnegie  committee  asserts*  that  the  Greeks 
killed  their  Bulgarian  prisoners,  by  official  order, 
"that  the  dirty  Bulgarian  race  may  not  spring  up 
again." 

Nothing,  however,  can  bring  home  to  the  average 
reader  the  intensity  of  hate  which  the  schism  between 
the  Patriarchical  (Greek)  and  the  Exarchical  (Bul- 
gar) churches  has  created,  than  the  popular  Greek 
war  poster  of  a  year  ago,  which  is  reprinted  in  the 
report!  and  is  described  on  the  next  page  as  follows : 

It  shows  a  Greek  highlander  holding  a  living  Bulgarian 
soldier  with  both  hands,  while  he  gnaws  the  face  of  his 


*  Carnegie  Report ^  p.  148. 
t  Carnegie  Report,  p.  96. 


348  Germany's  Point  of   View 

victim  with  his  teeth,  like  some  beast  of  prey.  It  is  en- 
titled the  Bulgar-eater,  and  is  adorned  with  the  following 
verses : 

"  The  sea  of  fire  which  boils  in  my  breast, 
And  calls  for  vengeance  with  the  savage  waves  of  my  soul, 
Will  be  quenched  when  the  monsters  of  Sofia  are  still, 
And  thy  life  blood  extinguishes  my  hate." 

This  hate  is  returned  in  kind  by  the  Bulgars,  albeit 
with  that  moderation  which  characterizes  the  superior 
race,  and  that  the  Bulgars  as  a  nation  are  superior  to 
the  Greeks  and  vastly  superior  to  the  Servs,  nobody 
who  has  visited  the  three  countries  can  doubt.  It  is, 
therefore,  humanly  impossible  to  assume  that  in  the 
present  European  war  Bulgaria  should  voluntarily 
fight  on  the  side  of  Servia  or  of  Greece;  and  every 
contrary  report  may  be  dismissed  as  fantastic. 

Nor  does  Bulgaria  harbor  any  feelings  of  gratitude 
toward  Russia.  Her  establishment  as  a  nation,  while 
seemingly  the  result  of  the  Russo-Turkish  war  of 
1877,  was  in  fact  only  the  culmination  of  her  religious 
independence  won  by  herself  and  secured  by  the  firman 
of  the  Sultan  in  1870.  The  subsequent  favors  shown 
her  by  Russia  have  been  balanced,  in  her  mind,  by  the 
many  instances  when  Russian  support  has  failed  her. 
She  has  fully  realized  that  Russia  has  never  had  a 
real  interest  in  any  of  the  Balkan  States,  but  has 
been  using  them  as  pawns  in  her  political  game. 

Germany  and  Bulgaria  have  always  been  good 
friends,  for  it  was  Germany  who  taught  her  how  to 
govern  herself.  The  bloodless  revolution  which  turned 
out  Prince  Alexander  and  all  his  high  of^fi-cials  of 
German  blood  was  not  a  hostile  demonstration,  but  a 
declaration  that  the  time  had  come  when  Bulgaria  had 
learned  her  lesson  and  could  manage  her  own  affairs. 


Bulgaria  349 

The  Austro-Bulgarian  relations  used  to  be  less  cor- 
dial, because  Austria  was  intimate  with  Milan,  the 
king  of  the  despised  Servs.  When  the  royal  regime 
in  Servia  changed,  and  Austria  too  had  to  suffer  from 
the  Servs,  a  bond  of  sympathy,  as  it  were,  drew  Aus- 
tria and  Bulgaria  more  closely  together.  The  Bulgars, 
however,  are  not  the  people  to  haul  the  chestnuts  out 
of  the  fire  for  anybody.  They  have  the  perfectly 
justifiable  desire  of  deserving  the  name  of  a  civilized 
nation,  and,  proud  of  the  settled  conditions  in  their 
own  country,  when  everything  about  them  is  chaos, 
they  are  not  going  to  enter  this  war  unless  necessity 
forces  them  into  it.  Since  an  overwhelming  victory 
of  the  Servians  is  out  of  the  question,  there  appear 
at  present  only  three  contingencies  which  might  induce 
the  Bulgars  to  run  once  more  the  risks  of  war.  With 
their  great  hopes  of  a  national  future,  they  cannot 
calmly  watch  Russia  take  Constantinople  and  settle 
to  the  south  of  them.  If  it  should,  therefore,  appear 
that  Constantinople  is  in  imminent  danger  and  that 
Bulgaria's  help  could  save  it,  she  might  enter  the  war. 

The  second  contingency  is  if  she  should  be  attacked. 
This  could  not  be  directly,  but  only  through  Roumania, 
and,  since  the  latter  has  given  no  signs  whatsoever  of 
any  such  intentions,  this  danger  is  remote.  If  Rou- 
mania, however,  as  has  been  suggested,  should  attack 
Austria-Hungary  with  a  view  to  making  conquests, 
this  might  be  construed  by  Bulgaria  as  an  indirect 
attack  upon  her  future;  for  no  state  can  see  his 
neighbor  grow  overstrong  by  conquest  without  seeing 
his  own  prospects  jeopardized.  Those  who  know  Rou- 
mania, however,  claim  that  she  is  far  too  honorable  to 
attack  Austria-Hungary  now,  when  the  Dual  Monarchy 


350  Germany's  Point  of  View 

is  fighting  for  its  life,  for  any  territory  snatched  from 
Austria  under  such  conditions  is  tainted  property. 

The  last  contingency  is  that,  in  a  time  when  passions 
are  high  everywhere,  Bulgaria's  own  hatred  of  the 
Servs  and  all  adherents  of  the  Patriarchal  Church 
may  prove  too  great  for  her  common  sense.  Her  self- 
possession  in  having  kept  out  of  the  war  thus  long  is 
commendable,  but  if  England  should  succeed  in  forc- 
ing Greece  to  do  her  bidding  and  assist  the  allied  fleet 
before  the  Dardanelles  by  landing  troops  on  the  pen- 
insula of  Gallipoli,  it  will  be  hard,  if  not  impossible, 
for  the  government  to  restrain  the  people.  For  there 
is  not  a  loyal  Bulgar  anywhere  who  does  not  feel  it 
his  pleasant  and  sacred  duty  to  honor  his  church  by 
taking  vengeance  on  the  Servs  and  on  the  Greeks. 


CHAPTER   XXVII 

THE   EXPORTATION   OF  ARMS 

THE  assumption  that  an  embargo  on  the  export 
of  arms  might  inure  to  the  benefit  of  Germany 
is  not  the  reason  why  an  embargo  is  demanded.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  a  reason  why  many  shrink  from 
asking  for  it  pubHcly,  for  they  disHke  to  appear  as 
the  defenders  of  a  cause  the  fruition  of  which  would 
result  in  material  benefits  to  themselves  or  to  their 
friends.  In  the  thoughts  of  most  advocates  of  the 
embargo  this  whole  question  is  of  little  consequence. 
The  reason  why  it  has  been  here  mentioned  is  because 
of  the  wish  that  no  misunderstanding  should  prevail. 
The  advocates  of  the  embargo  say  very  frankly: 

If  you  chose  to  think  meanly  of  us  and  believe  that  we 
have  an  ulterior  motive,  and  wish  to  help  Germany  while 
we  shout  for  neutrality,  we  know  what  you  have  in  mind, 
and  we  are  not  afraid  to  state  it.  But  you  are  mistaken. 
Our  reasons  are  of  an  entirely  different  sort,  springing 
directly  from  our  hearts. 

In  order  to  understand  this  the  reader  should  picture 
a  little  group  of  men  gathered  recently  in  a  committee 
room  in  Boston.  They  were  all  American  citizens, 
some  of  them  born  in  this  country,  and  yet  there  was 
not  a  man  there  who  had  not  a  brother,  cousin,  uncle, 
or  more  distant  relatives  on  the  firing  line.  One,  a 
merchant  long  established  in  Boston,  has  two  brothers 
and  ten  cousins  at  the  front;   while  another  had  re- 

351 


35^  Germany  s  Point  of   View 

cently  heard  of  the  death  of  five  sons  of  one  family 
of  friends.  All  the  men  present  in  that  room  had 
received  letters  in  which  the  American  cartridges  and 
shrapnels  had  been  spoken  of  as  more  deadly  than 
those  of  French  manufacture  previously  used  by  the 
Allies.  A  brief  note  was  alread  read  from  a  captain  in 
the  German  flying  corps  —  up  to  last  summer  the 
manager  of  one  of  the  big  shipping  interests  in 
Boston  —  who  wrote : 

The  American  shrapnels  have  arrived,  watch  the  death 
lists ;  they  will  be  longer  hereafter. 

Suddenly  one  of  the  men  jumped  up,  crying: 

I  can  stand  it  no  longer.    It  is  terrible  to  think  that 

should  die.  I  could  be  reconciled  with  the  thought  that 
he  should  be  killed  on  the  field  of  honor,  but  to  think  that 
he  should  die  by  a  bullet  made  in  America,  in  a  factory 
built  perhaps  with  my  own  money,  loaned  by  one  of  our 
banks,  this  is  too  much !  We  have  no  quarrel  with  Ger- 
many, and  yet  we  are  killing  her  sons. 

This  is  the  reason  why  from  Maine  to  California 
and  from  the  Canadian  border  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
Americans  of  German  descent  have  risen  like  one  man 
demanding  that  the  traffic  in  arms  should  be  stopped. 
Their  chorus  of  voices  is  sweUing  louder  and  louder: 

Cease  the  export  of  arms;  cease  killing  our  brother; 
cease  talking  neutrality,  when  you  know  that  in  fact  we 
are  not  neutral.  The  old  fairy  tale  that  the  Government 
is  not  responsible  for  what  the  individual  citizens  are 
doing  was  all  right  when  the  people  and  the  Government 
were  distinct.  In  America,  however,  the  people  are  the 
Government,  and  the  Government  should  be  the  people. 
We  should  be  governed  by  what  we  know  and  feel  is  right, 
and  not  by  the  commercial  privileges  held  out  to  con- 
scienceless traders  by  the  socalled  law  of  nations  —  that 
remnant  of  the  outworn  order  of  things  with  which  our 
republic  broke  definitely  in  1776. 


The  Exportation  of  Arms  353 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  sentiments  are 
honest  and  that  the  men  and  women  who  utter  them 
feel  them  deeply.  Is  not  a  big  republic  like  the  United 
States  based  on  the  readiness  of  the  majority  to  con- 
sider the  sacredness  of  the  feelings  of  their  fellow 
citizens?  Why  have  the  pro-Allies  been  so  unwilling 
to  understand  those  who  think  differently?  Why  this 
uncompromising  attitude  of  scorn  and  vilification?  A 
possible  answer  is  found  in  the  remarkable  fact  that 
the  leaders  of  the  bitter  anti-German  movement  are 
exceedingly  old  men,  probably  incapable  of  grasping 
new  ideas  when  their  minds  are  made  up.  When  the 
history  of  this  war  is  written,  in  so  far  as  it  affects 
America,  people  will  marvel  at  the  excedingly  old  age 
of  this  leadership.  Of  the  four  men  in  the  first  rank; 
only  one  is  on  the  sunny  side  of  seventy,  while  alto- 
gether they  average  over  seventy-five  years  of  age! 
There  is  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world  for 
this  phenomenon,  that  a  majority  of  the  most  highly 
educated  people  of  a  big  nation  should  follow  the  lead 
and  hang  on  the  words  of  men  of  such  extreme  old 
age! 

These  men  cannot  hear  the  grumble  of  discontent 
and  feel  the  heartaches  of  millions  of  their  fellow 
citizens.  If  one  were  to  believe  that  this  leadership 
would  last,  one  might  well  despair  of  the  future  of 
the  country.  But  it  cannot  last.  So  young  and  vigor- 
ous, so  joyous  and  courageous  a  nation  as  the  United 
States  will  not  for  long  endure  the  autocratic  guidance 
of  octogenarians. 

There  is,  moreover,  perceptible  everywhere  a  quick- 
ened sense  of  moral  responsibility  against  the  expor- 
tation of  arms,  although  many  people  whose  natural 


354  Germany's  Point  of  View 

sympathies  are  with  one  or  all  of  the  Allies  are  troubled 
by  the  thought,  zealously  suggested  to  them,  that 
America  could  not  stop  the  exportation  of  arms  with- 
out thereby  committing  an  unneutral,  if  not  a  dis- 
tinctly unfriendly,  act  towards  Great  Britain.  This, 
the  advocates  of  the  embargo  believe,  is  a  very  erro- 
neous suggestion.  In  the  first  place.  Great  Britain 
has  forced  several  neutral  nations  since  the  war  began 
to  decree  embargoes  against  Germany.  She  would 
surely  not  maintain  before  the  world  that  she  had 
forced  these  nations  to  commit  unneutral  acts.  But 
if  the  laying  of  an  embargo  during  the  progress  of 
the  war  at  the  behest  of  England  is  not  unneutral, 
America  need  not  fear  to  be  unneutral  if  she  decrees 
an  embargo  at  the  behest  of  her  own  sense  of 
humaneness. 

Such  a  decree  can  only  be  issued  on  the  authority 
of  Congress,  unless  perchance  some  existing  law 
should  give  such  an  authority  to  the  President.  In 
either  case  it  can  be  done,  under  present  conditions, 
only  at  the  demand  of  the  people  at  large.  For  this 
reason  the  advocates  of  the  measure  are  endeavoring 
to  persuade  their  fellow  citizens  to  agree  with  them 
that  the  American  standard  of  morality  demands  such 
a  course.  There  is  nothing  un-American  in  this  en- 
deavor, and  when  Mr.  C.  R.  Miller  and  the  New  York 
Times  call  this  a  foreign  propaganda  it  would  seem 
that  their  real  arguments  are  not  strong  enough  to 
stand  the  light  of  day. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  the  whole  movement  is  perni- 
cious because  it  contraverts  international  law.  Again, 
nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth.  International 
law  is  nothing  but  the  usage  of  centuries,  often  forced 


The  Exportation  of  Arms  355 

on  unwilling  nations.  In  the  eighteenth  century  sev- 
eral countries  revolted  against  the  English  interpreta- 
tion of  what  was  right  or  wrong  in  war;  and  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  that  America  should  have  stood 
up  boldly,  from  the  very  first,  for  a  more  liberal  inter- 
pretation. Roughly  speaking,  England  claimed  that  in 
war,  when  the  interests  of  the  belligerents  and  of  the 
neutrals  clash,  those  of  the  former  are  paramount, 
while  America  urged  that  those  of  the  latter  have  the 
precedence.  If  America's  contention,  which  was  first 
advanced  more  than  one  hundred  years  ago,  had 
been  adopted,  it  would  have  resulted  in  the  absolute 
freedom  of  the  sea,  and  the  neutral  commerce  with 
both  belligerents  would  have  been  as  assured  in  war 
as  in  peace.  Since  there  would  not  have  been  any 
interference  with  the  commerce  of  a  neutral,  con- 
traband trade,  too,  would  have  been  safe  from  in- 
terruption. 

The  American  contention  came  only  once  near  being 
accepted  by  other  nations,  when,  at  the  second  Hague 
Conference,  the  "American  idea,"  in  a  slightly  modified 
form,  was  presented  to  the  conference  by  Joseph 
Choate  on  June  24,  1907,  and  voted  upon  July  17.  It 
received  twenty-one  of  the  thirty-three  votes  present; 
among  them  those  of  Germany,  Austria-Hungary, 
Italy,  the  Scandinavian  countries,  Turkey,  and  China. 
Eleven  countries  voted  against  it,  France,  Russia,  and 
Japan  rallying  to  the  support  of  Great  Britain,  who 
wanted  to  beat  it.  Chile  abstained  from  voting,  and 
several  unimportant  countries  had  not  been  repre- 
sented. When  England  saw  herself  beaten  she  added 
up  the  number  of  inhabitants  in  the  countries  that 
had  supported  her  and  in  her  own  numerous  colonies 


356  Gennanys  Point  of   View 

and  those  of  her  friends,  and  announced  that  really 
her  side  had  won,  for  her  eleven  votes  represented 
729,000,000  of  people,  while  the  twenty-one  votes 
which  had  carried  the  motion  represented  804,000,000 
of  people,  "400,000,000  of  whom  were  Chinese." 
Mr.  Choate  saw  the  English  point  that  Chinese 
are  not  "people''  in  the  sense  of  Englishmen  or 
Gurkas,  and,  although  his  proposal  had  won  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  votes,  gracefully  yielded  to 
England  and  withdrew  the  American  proposal.  It  is 
the  same  Mr.  Choate  who  today  is  one  of  the  bitterest 
old  men  leaders  against  Germany.  It  was  Germany 
who  supported  the  "American  idea"  throughout,  and 
whom  Mr.  Choate  deserted  in  the  conference  to  please 
England.  Possibly  this  act  of  treachery  explains  his 
present  animosity,  for  one  hates  nobody  so  badly  as 
him  whom  one  remembers  having  cheated. 

With  this  one  exception,  when  the  "American  idea  " 
came  near  being  made  part  of  the  written  law  of 
nations,  America  has  not  met  with  much  success  in 
having  other  countries  accept  her  views  of  the  proper 
conduct  of  naval  warfare.  If,  however,  she  had  been 
successful,  she  would  now  have  been  able  to  export 
munitions  of  war  as  safely  to  Germany  as  to  the  Allies. 
If  under  such  conditions  public  opinion  should  have 
spoken  against  the  nefarious  traffic  in  death-dealing 
weapons,  she  could  have  stopped  it  without  fear  of 
being  unneutral,  because  both  belligerents  would  have 
suffered  equally. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  "American  idea"  has  not 
been  accepted,  although  it  has  been  eloquently  stated 
by  many  American  statesmen.  To  quote  from  them 
today  in  favor  of  the  export  of  arms,  and  to  disregard 


The  Exportation  of  Arms  357 

the  fact  that  their  contentions  have  never  been  accepted 
in  toto,  is  misleading. 

The  conventions  of  The  Hague  of  1907  and  the 
Declaration  of  London  of  1909,  were  attempts  at  an 
agreement  between  the  diametrically  opposed  views 
of  the  paramount  rights  of  the  belligerents  and  the 
independent  rights  of  the  neutrals.  On  several  points 
no  agreements  could  be  reached;  in  others,  separate 
treaties  into  which  America  had  entered  with  one  state 
or  another  offered  valuable  suggestions.  On  the  whole, 
it  would  seem  fair  to  say  that  the  Declaration  of 
London  represented  the  highest  moral  standard  on 
which  all  the  nations  were  able  to  agree.  It  was  signed 
by  the  delegate  of  Great  Britain,  an  act  which  Sir 
Edward  Grey  declared  was  sufficient  to  bind  the 
country.  Parliament,  under  the  leadership  of  Mr. 
T.  Gibson  Bowles,  was  of  another  opinion  and  refused 
its  formal  ratification.  On  the  strength  of  this,  Eng- 
land has  now  felt  at  liberty  to  alter  it,  and  practically 
to  disregard  it.  In  other  words,  she  has  allowed 
herself  to  follow  a  lower  standard  than  the  one  to 
which  her  Government  had  acceded.  Does  that  mean 
that  America  should  follow  suit  and  herself  be  no 
longer  willing  to  be  guided  by  principles  the  correct- 
ness of  which  have  remained  undisputed,  although 
England  has  claimed  her  "necessity"  as  an  excuse 
for  disregarding  them? 

Unfortunately,  this  is  exactly  what  our  Government 
has  done  by  permitting  England  to  set  her  own 
standard.  In  so  doing,  many  people  believe  that 
America  was  not  only  not  true  to  herself,  but  that 
she  did  so  with  a  distinct  preference  of  one  of  the 
belligerents,   thus    endangering   her   strict   neutrality. 


358  Germany's  Point  of   View 

But  having  done  so,  it  is  incumbent  upon  her  to  shape 
her  actions  impartially  according  to  the  new  —  or 
rather  old  —  standard  which  she  has  been  wilHng  to 
accept. 

The  old  standard  has  been  variously  interpreted, 
and  it  is  possible  to  cite  numerous  writers  on  almost 
any  phase  of  the  subject.  The  most  recent  interpre- 
tation of  it  was  given  by  Mr.  T.  Gibson  Bowles.  What 
is  the  use  of  referring  to  legal  writers  long  dead,  when 
the  success  of  Mr.  Bowles  in  Parliament*  proves  that 
he  represents  the  present  working  majority  of  the 
British  people?  It  was  he  who  advised  his  colleagues 
to  beat  the  Declaration  of  London  and  to  revert  to 
the  good  old  standard,  which  he  interpreted  for  them  — 
with  little  opposition.  He  calls  the  export  of  arms  to 
one  or  both  belligerents  monstrous,  unneutral,  and 
contrary  to  the  law  of  nations. 

To  deal  with  England  in  everything  affecting  her 
interests  according  to  the  standard  of  Mr.  Bowles' 
choice,  and  to  return  to  the  entirely  different  standard 
of  the  "American  idea  "  when  the  actions  of  individual 
citizens  which  hurt  Germany  are  concerned,  is  not 
in  keeping  with  the  American  standards  of  honest 
morality. 

Another  thing  also  should  not  be  forgotten.  The 
present  export  trade  in  munitions  of  war  is  not  a 
natural  one,  for  it  is  not  only  the  established  factories 
which  are  selling  their  products.  An  entirely  new 
and  artificially  stimulated  industry  has  been  created. 
Everywhere  new  factories  are  being  built,  or  existing 

*  Mr.  Bowles  was  not  re-elected  to  the  last  Parliament,  and 
although  the  House  voted  against  his  views  the  Lords  sus- 
tained him,  and  the  Government  acquiesced  in  the  decision. 


The  Exportation  of  Arms  359 

buildings  remodeled  to  enable  their  owners  to  get  their 
share  of  the  Judas  money. 

Suppose  America  were  at  war  and  every  available 
house  and  factory  in  Canada  should  be  turned  into  a 
gun  factory  and  arms  and  munitions  of  war  be  sold 
to  America's  enemies  in  proportions  of  thousand 
and  more  percent  of  the  natural  output  of  the  coun- 
try: would  America  not  feel  that  Canada  was  in 
fact  fighting  against  her,  however  many  authorities 
should  be  quoted  to  prove  that  legally  Canada  was 
neutral  ? 

It  has  never  been  denied  that  until  an  embargo  is 
laid  on  the  export  of  munitions  of  war  the  individual 
manufacturer  is  legally  unassailable.  What  is  claimed 
is  that  he  is  morally  wrong.  Nor  is  this  a  view  held 
only  by  men  of  German  extraction,  for  a  number  of 
manufacturers  have  declined  the  English  orders.  To 
spread  the  high  moral  sense  of  these  men  among  all 
Americans  is  the  aim  of  the  advocates  of  an  embargo. 
President  Cleveland  held  much  the  same  view,  for  he 
said  in  his  annual  message,  December  2,  1895,  in 
reference  to  Cuba : 

The  plain  duty  of  their  [the  citizens  of  the  United 
States]  Government  is  to  observe  in  good  faith  the  recog- 
nized obligations  of  international  relationship.  The  per- 
formance of  this  duty  should  not  be  made  more  difficult 
by  a  disregard  on  the  part  of  our  citizens  of  the  obliga- 
tions growing  out  of  their  allegiance  to  their  country 
which  should  restrain  them  from  violating  as  individuals 
the  neutrality  which  the  nation  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers is  bound  to  observe  in  its  relations  to  friendly  sov- 
ereign States. 

These  words  are  unmistakable.  President  Cleveland 
asks  his  fellow  citizens  to  refrain  from  doing  as  indi- 


360  Germany's  Point  of   View 

viduals  what  the  State  as  such  is  prevented  from 
doing  if  it  wishes  to  remain  neutral.  Not  even  the 
most  ardent  advocates  of  the  export  of  arms  claim 
that  the  United  States  as  such  can  export  arms  and 
be  neutral.  If  one,  therefore,  asks  the  Americans  to 
desist  from  the  exportation  of  arms,  one  follows  the 
advice  of  President  Cleveland,  an  undoubtedly  patriotic 
American. 

But  if  this  was  Cleveland's  advice  in  regard  to  Cuba, 
when  only  few  people  of  Cuban  blood  were  residents 
of  America,  how  much  more  would  he  have  counselled 
such  abstinence  in  the  present  war,  when  millions  of 
Americans  are  hit  in  their  own  flesh  and  blood  by  every 
bullet  sent  from  these  shores ! 

And  more,  the  men  of  Germanic  stock  in  this  coun- 
try are  loyal  to  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  however  dear 
the  Fatherland  is  to  them.  They,  therefore,  see  with 
growing  anxiety  the  anger  of  the  Germans  at  what 
appears  to  them  to  be  the  unneutral  attitude  of 
America.  Germany  is  in  no  position  to  make  war 
upon  America,  but  so  much  more  scrupulous  should 
the  United  States  be  in  its  observance  of  true  neutral- 
ity, for  no  other  course  is  compatible  with  its  high 
sense  of  morality.  What  is  sauce  to  the  goose  is  sauce 
for  the  gander.  During  the  Mexican  war  the  United 
States  asserted  that  a  bona  fide  neutrality  and  the 
export  of  arms  are  incompatible,  and  declared  the 
latter  to  be  a  casus  belli. 

And  in  case  he  [the  officer  in  command]  should  after- 
wards at  any  time  discover  that  under  the  guise  of  neu- 
trality the  Yucatanese  are  carrying  on  a  contraband  trade 
and  furnishing  Mexico  with  arms  and  munitions  of  war, 
he  will  be  instructed  without  further  orders  from  his  Gov- 
ernment to  recommence  hostile  operations. 


The  Exportation  of  Arms  361 

These  words  were  written  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  Secre- 
tary of  State,  February  22,  1847;  while  Mr.  Seward 
wrote  on  August  7,  1865 : 

British  subjects  who  intervene  in  our  Civil  War  in  the 
manner  .  .  .  mentioned  \i.  e.,  by  selling  munitions 
of  war]  are  by  the  law  of  nations  liable  to  be  treated  by 
this  Government  as  enemies  of  the  United  States,  having 
no  lawful  claim  to  be  protected  by  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment. 

Applying  this  doctrine  at  the  present  time,  it  means 
that  there  are  thousands  of  people  in  America  today 
whom  Germany  is  justified  in  considering  as  enemies. 
Under  the  American  form  of  government  this  is  an 
anomaly,  as  appears  from  a  decision  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,*  which  says  : 

The  intercourse  of  this  country  with  foreign  nations 
and  its  policy  in  regard  to  them  are  placed  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  in  the  hands  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  its  decisions  upon  these  subjects  are  obligatory 
upon  every  citizen  of  the  Union.  He  is  bound  to  be  at 
war  with  the  nation  against  which  the  war-making  power 
has  declared  war,  and  equally  bound  to  commit  no  act  of 
hostility  against  a  nation  with  which  the  Government  is 
in  amity  and  friendship. 

This  principle  is  universally  acknowledged.  ...  It 
is,  however,  more  emphatically  true  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  For  as  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the 
people,  every  citizen  is  a  portion  of  it  and  is  himself  per- 
sonally bound  by  the  laws  which  the  representatives  of 
the  sovereignty  may  pass,  or  the  treaties  into  which  they 
may  enter.  .  .  .  The  compact  is  made  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Government  upon  which  he  himself  has 
agreed  to  confer  the  power.  It  is  his  own  personal  com- 
pact as  a  portion  of  the  sovereignty. 

This  decision  was  quoted  by  Mr.  Olney  as  Secretary 
of  State  on  June  18,  1895,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Massey, 

*  Kennet  vs.  Chambers  14  How.  38,  49. 


362  Germany's  Point  of   View 

who  had  asked  whether  he  would  be  legally  and  morally 
right  if  his  bank  acted  as  a  depository  for  the  funds  of 
the  insurgents  in  Cuba.  Mr.  Olney  replied  that  Mr. 
Massey  might  possibly  be  within  his  legal  rights,  but 
that  his  **moral  duty  in  the  premises  does  not  admit 
of  the  least  question."  To  act  as  a  depository  for  the 
insurgents  would  be  a  hostile  act  against  Spain,  with 
whom  the  United  States  was  at  peace.  Morally,  there- 
fore, Mr.  Massey  could  not  undertake  the  trust. 

If  this  was  so  in  Mr.  Massey's  case,  how  much  more 
is  it  so  in  the  case  of  the  present  exportation  of  arms, 
which  has  grown  to  such  proportions  that  it  amounts 
*  to  "  an  important  aid  of  the  war,"  in  which  case  it  is 
no  longer  neutral,  according  to  a  recent  decision.* 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  whatever  the  legal  aspect 
of  the  case  is,  the  American  much-inflated  traffic  in 
arms  is  morally  wrong.  It  is  deeply  felt  to  be  so  by 
millions  of  American  citizens.  Is  it  worthy  of  America 
to  continue  a  practice  which  cannot  be  defended  as 
morally  correct,  and  which  brings  deep  sorrow,  shame, 
and  suffering  to  a  great  part  if  not  actually  a  majority 
of  the  people,  merely  because  it  pays? 

*  See  Moore's  Digestj  vii.,  960. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

THE  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF   NEUTRALS 

THERE  are  no  rights  without  duties,  no  privileges 
without  obligations.  And  it  is  largely  from  this 
point  of  view  that  Mr.  Bryan's  Easter  gift  to  Eng- 
land, in  the  shape  of  his  note  to  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
deserves  condemnation.  He  assured  his  august  friend 
of  his  faith  in  England,  and  expressed  his  hope  that 
the  British  Order-in-Council,  which  forbade  neutral 
nations  to  trade  with  Germany,  did  not  mean  exactly 
what  it  said,  and  that  it  could  be  explained  as  not  an 
infringement  of  the  rights  of  neutrals. 

Public  opinion  in  this  country  is  so  sharply  divided 
between  pro-Ally  and  pro-German  that  a  purely  Amer- 
ican discussion  is  rendered  difficult.  Fortunately,  a 
safe  escape  from  this  dilemma  is  offered  by  the  com- 
parison of  the  actions  of  the  American  Government 
with  those  of  other  neutral  States.  The  note  of  the 
Dutch  Government  in  reply  to  the  same  British  Order- 
in-Council  has  just  come  to  hand  and  deserves  careful 
perusal.    The  note  translated  reads  as  follows : 

The  Dutch  Government  does  not  wish  to  pass  judgment 
on  the  rectitude  of  the  measures  taken  by  the  belligerents, 
but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Netherlands,  as  a  neutral  Power, 
to  raise  its  voice  when  these  measures  infringe  ac- 
knowledged principles  concerning  the  rights  of  neutral 
States. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  war  the  Dutch  Govern- 
ment protested  against  every  curtailment  by  the  bel- 
ligerents of  the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  did  so  in  the  in- 

363 


364  Germany's  Point  of   View 

terest  both  of  the  rights  of  Holland  as  a  neutral  Power 
and  of  the  law  of  nations. 

The  Dutch  attitude  cannot  be  other  now  in  view  of  the 
measures  taken  [by  the  Allies],  since  they  ignore  the  great 
principle  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris,  according  to  which 
neutral  and  hostile  property,  except  contraband,  is  in- 
violate so  long  as  it  is  protected  by  a  neutral  flag. 

In  abolishing  this  principle  the  British  Order-in-Council 
has  decreed  that  the  British  fleet  should  put  into  execution 
arbitrary  measures  of  force  not  only  against  the  private 
property  of  the  enemy,  even  if  it  is  not  contraband,  but 
also  against  the  property  of  neutrals  if  there  is  a  sus- 
picion that  this  property  is  of  enemy  origin  or  destination. 

The  instructors  of  the  British  Government  hold  out 
promises  that  these  measures  will  be  applied  rather 
leniently  where  neutral  property  is  concerned,  but  no 
definite  rules  have  been  issued,  as  a  guide,  to  protect  the 
interests  of  shipping  and  commerce. 

Article  8  leaves  the  possibility  of  moderating  the  in- 
structions of  the  Order-in-Council,  so  far  as  the  ships  of 
countries  are  concerned  which  declare  that  no  transporta- 
tion of  goods  to  and  from  Germany  or  of  goods  owned  by 
Germans  will  take  place  under  their  flags. 

It  is,  however,  my  duty  to  state  with  much  emphasis 
that,  under  the  existing  conditions,  the  Dutch  Government 
has  no  right  to  make  such  a  declaration,  for,  as  they  under- 
stand their  duties  as  neutrals,  the  exact  fulfilment  of  them 
precludes  their  assuming  any  such  obligation. 

Your  excellency  informed  me,  even  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  British  Order-in-Council,  that  the  interests  of 
the  Netherlands  and  their  transoceanic  possessions  would 
receive  careful  attention.  But,  even  so,  and  however  mod- 
erate the  application  of  the  Order-in-Council  may  be,  it 
is  impossible  for  the  Dutch  Government  to  remain  silent 
in  the  face  of  this  serious  infringement  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  guaranteed  by  all 
the  Powers  for  more  than  half  a  century. 

The  most  important  part  of  this  note  is  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  Netherlands  that  neutrals  have  not  only 
privileges  but  also  obligations,  and  that  it  is  their  duty 
to  insist  upon  their  rights.  This  duty  is  threefold  — 
first,  to  themselves,  their  self-respect,  and  their  inter- 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        365 

ests;  secondly,  to  the  law  of  nations,  which  they  are 
bound  to  uphold  with  all  their  strength ;  and,  thirdly, 
to  their  relations  with  the  belligerents. 

Holland  is  completely  at  the  mercy  of  England.  She 
has  no  big  navy  to  defend  her  communications  with 
her  colonies ;  her  army  is  small,  and  throwing  her  lot 
in  with  Germany  would  not  greatly  inconvenience 
England,  who  in  that  event  would  joy  to  possess  her- 
self of  the  Dutch  transoceanic  properties.  England 
promised  her  —  actually  by  her  responsible  minister, 
and  inferentially  by  Article  8  of  the  Order-in-Council 
—  that  she  should  not  suffer  in  her  own  vital  interests 
if  she  would  connive  in  England's  misdeeds  and  boy- 
cott Germany.  Holland's  privileges,  in  other  words, 
were  guaranteed.  But  with  the  courage  that  in  such 
cases  should  distinguish  every  country,  Holland  de- 
clared that  she  could  not  do  this  and  remain  silent,  in 
view  of  England's  "  serious  infringement  of  the  law 
of  nations."  And  the  reason  why  she  could  not  keep 
silent  is  given  earlier  by  her  declaration  that  she  had 
to  protest  in  the  interest  of  the  law  itself. 

This  consideration  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred 
to  Mr.  Bryan  at  all.  His  gentle  protest  states  the  rights 
of  America  to  trade  with  whom  she  pleases.  Rights, 
however,  may  be  waived  when  our  sympathies  make 
this  desirable.  Duties  cannot  be  waived.  If  it  is  only 
the  right  of  America  to  trade  with  Germany,  nobody 
can  find  fault  with  the  existing  government  if  it  is 
willing  to  surrender  its  rights,  provided  it  correctly 
interprets  the  wishes  of  the  people.  If  it  is,  however, 
the  duty  of  every  country  to  insist  upon  its  rights,  not 
only  for  the  sake  of  its  own  self-respect  and  material 
prosperity,  but  also  for  the  sake  of  the  law  itself  and 


366  Germany's  Point  of  View 

the  obligations  towards  both  parties  of  the  contestants 
which  its  privileges  as  a  neutral  entail,  then  the  protest 
must  be  made  with  the  necessary  resoluteness. 

In  such  a  case  it  is  immaterial  where  the  sympathies 
of  the  individual  citizens  or  officials  are.  Holland  is 
reputed  to  be  anything  but  pro-German,  but  she  dared 
to  give  voice  to  her  indignation  in  a  way  which  by 
comparison  will  drive  the  blood  of  shame  to  the  faces 
of  those  Americans  who,  when  the  war  is  over,  will 
re-read  Mr.  Bryan's  weak  and  irresolute  note. 

What  has  Mr.  Bryan's  assertion  that  England  has 
always  stood  up  before  the  world  as  a  law-abiding 
nation  to  do  with  the  case?  Did  he  not  write  such 
flattering  paragraphs  to  throw  sand  in  the  eyes  of  the 
American  people?  Or  is  he  really  ignorant  of  Eng- 
land's record?  Would  justice  not  have  compelled  him 
rather  to  quote  the  description  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment given  by  Jefferson  in  his  letter  to  Thomas  Leiper 
on  June  12,  1815?  — 

We  concur  in  considering  the  Government  of  England 
as  totally  without  morality,  insolent  beyond  bearing,  in- 
flated with  vanity  and  ambition,  aiming  at  the  exclusive 
dominion  of  the  seas,  lost  in  corruption  and  deep-rooted 
hatred  toward  us,  hostile  to  liberty  wherever  it  endeavors 
to  show  its  head,  and  the  eternal  disturber  of  the  peace 
of  the  world. 

And  should  Mr.  Bryan  not  have  added  to  this  pas- 
sage the  remark  that  a  careful  search  through  history 
had  failed  to  reveal  any  change  of  heart  on  the  part 
of  the  British  Government?  China,  India,  Egypt, 
Africa,  all  attest  that  the  ruthless  spirit  of  official 
England  has  not  changed. 

In  reality,  however,  neither  Mr.  Bryan's  false  esti- 
mate   of    England    nor    England's    historically    true 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        367 

character  have  anything  to  do  with  the  protest  against 
the  Order-in-Council  which  it  was  America's  duty  to 
make  effective.  Mr.  Bryan  is  more  of  a  literary  man 
than  a  historian,  and  has  confused  the  deeds  of  the 
British  Government  with  the  unquestionably  sincere 
professions  of  English  scholars  and  litterateurs.  Such 
a  mistake,  however,  is  unpardonable  in  a  man  who  is 
called  upon  to  guide  the  destinies  of  his  fellow  citizens. 
It  may,  however,  very  appropriately  be  asked  how 
America  could  have  made  her  protest  effective  without 
threatening  to  go  to  war.  The  fates  themselves  have 
placed  a  peaceful,  albeit  most  effective,  weapon  into 
her  hands.  All  she  had  to  do  was  to  speak  the  one 
word,  "Embargo."  Holland  had  no  such  lever  to 
enforce  her  protest.  America  had,  but  forebore  to 
use  it.  Looked  at  solely  from  the  American  point  of 
view,  is  there  any  reason  why  President  Wilson's 
Government  should  not  have  said  to  England : 

You  are  breaking  the  fundamental  principle  of  inter- 
national law.  You  command  us  to  cease  trading  with  Ger- 
many. You  have  forbidden  us  part  of  our  trade,  and  while 
we  do  not  wish  to  see  in  this  a  hostile  act,  we  trust  you 
too  will  see  no  hostility  in  our  reply,  which  is,  that  we 
forbid  you  to  trade  with  us,  until  you  have  rescinded  your 
lawless  Order-in-Council. 

Such  a  reply  would  have  brought  England  to  book 
immediately,  for  she  and  her  allies  are  dependent  on 
American  food  and  munitions  of  war.  An  embargo 
on  the  latter,  while  strongly  urged  for  months  by  the 
advocates  of  a  strict  American  neutrality,  has  never 
been  so  necessary  as  it  is  at  the  present  time. 

Whatever  view  may  be  taken  of  the  wording  of  the 
note  of  protest  presented  by  the  German  ambassador 
recently,  nobody  who  stops  to  look  at  this  question 


368  Germany's  Point  of   View 

from  the  German  point  of  view  can  deny  that  the 
Germans  have  cause  for  resentment.  The  editor  of 
The  Fatherland,  April  21,  1915,  put  the  case  succinctly 
thus: 

German  men  are  willing  to  die  from  American  bullets, 
so  long  as  we  do  not  aid  England  in  starving  their  wives 
and  their  children. 

German  women  are  willing  to  feel  the  pinch  of  starva- 
tion so  long  as  we  do  not  ship  bullets  to  kill  their  men. 

But  the  German  nation  is  justly  indignant  if  we  insist 
upon  both  murdering  their  men  and  starving  their  women 
and  children. 

If  America  claims  the  right  to  ship  munitions  of 
war  to  the  Allies,  she  has  also  the  right  to  ship  food 
to  Germany.  Munitions  of  war  are  contraband,  and 
the  precedent  of  centuries  has  given  permission  to 
that  one  of  the  belligerents  who  is  the  stronger  on  the 
sea  to  prevent  them  from  reaching  his  opponent.  Food 
for  the  civil  populations  is  not  contraband  of  war,  and 
the  precedent  of  generations,  as  well  as  the  principles 
of  humanity,  which  America  has  ever  defended,  for- 
bid interference  with  its  shipment.  America  is  faith- 
less to  her  principles  if  she  does  not  insist  upon  her 
right,  especially  since  in  this,  as  in  every  other  case, 
a  right  implies  a  duty.  She  would,  therefore,  be  acting 
within  her  legitimate  province  if  she  declared  an 
embargo  on  the  exportation  of  foodstuffs  to  England 
so  long  as  England  prohibited  similar  shipments  from 
reaching  Germany. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a  step  would  result 
in  the  immediate  freedom  of  the  sea,  at  least  for  non- 
contraband  goods.  Incidentally,  it  would  also  render 
the  whole  Belgian  relief  work  unnecessary.  Open  the 
sea  for  the  shipment  of  food,  and  Germany  will  be 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        369 

only  too  glad  to  buy  all  that  is  needed,  not  only  for 
her  own  civilian  population,  but  also  for  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Belgium  and  Poland,  the  two  countries  under 
German  military  occupation. 

Many  Americans  have  blamed  Germany  for  allowing 
outsiders  to  ship  food  to  Belgium  instead  of  feeding 
the  people  herself.  A  little  thought  should  convince 
them  that  America  and  not  Germany  is  to  blame ;  for 
if  America  had  done  her  duty  and  had  insisted  upon 
her  right  to  ship  foodstuffs  to  whoever  wished  to  buy 
any,  there  would  not  have  been  the  scarcity  in  Europe 
which  made  Belgium  dependent  on  charity. 

Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  Germany  is  in  a 
state  of  amity  with  America,  and  that  also  for  this 
reason  it  is  the  duty  of  America  to  refuse  submission 
to  England's  infraction  of  international  law  by  which 
she  wished  to  starve  Germany. 

America's  own  interests,  too,  are  said  to  demand  an* 
embargo  on  the  exportation  of  wheat.  This  position 
has  been  taken  by  Congressman  Gallivan,  of  Boston, 
and  other  popular  leaders  who  have  watched  with 
growing  alarm  the  rise  of  the  prices  of  wheat,  flour, 
and  bread.  Should  we  starve  our  own  people,  they 
have  said,  for  the  sake  of  the  madness  of  the  European 
belligerents?  The  swollen  profits  of  the  inflated  prices 
go  into  the  pockets  of  a  few  speculators,  with  the 
exception  of  a  certain  rake-off  which  is  diverted  into 
the  coffers  of  a  group  of  pro- Ally  bankers.  The  per- 
centage of  these  profits  thus  diverted  has  not  been 
published,  but  it  has  been  publicly  asserted  and 
printed,  and  has  remained  uncontradicted,  that  the 
banking  house  of  J.  P.  Morgan  &  Company  and  his 
allies  receive  fifteen  per  cent  of  the  purchase  price 


370  Germany's  Point  of  View 

of  all  munitions  of  war  shipped  from  this  country 
to  the  Allies.  J.  P.  Morgan,  the  father,  wrecked  the 
New  Haven  and  the  Boston  &  Maine  railroads,  while 
J.  P.  Morgan,  the  son,  has  set  out,  in  his  infatuation 
for  England  and  the  all-mighty  dollar,  to  wreck  not 
only  the  prosperity  of  what  officially  is  still  his  coun- 
try, but  also  to  strangle  the  good  name  of  America 
among  the  nations. 

Is  there  an  American  so  dull  that  he  does  not  see 
the  contempt  which  the  weak  submission  of  the 
American  Government  engenders  among  worth-while 
Britishers.  A  man  who  cheerfully  connives  in  the 
breaking  of  the  law,  hoping  thereby  to  benefit  his 
friend,  may  win  a  curt  "thank  you,''  but  loses  the 
respect  and  consequently  the  friendship  of  the  other, 
irretrievably. 

Where  will  America  stand  when  this  war  is  over? 
Despised  by  England  and  her  allies,  conscious  of  hav- 
ing deeply  hurt  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary,  sus- 
pected by  the  whole  world  as  always  ready  to  propound 
noble  principles  but  unwilling  to  insist  upon  their 
observation  —  a  truly  enviable  reputation!  But  it  is 
still  time.  In  America  the  Government  is  more  than 
anywhere  else  susceptible  to  the  wishes  of  the  people. 
Let  the  people  speak,  vociferously,  unanimously !  Let 
them  drop  the  pro- Ally  and  pro-German  battle-cries, 
and  let  them  see  whether  it  is  not  possible  even  at  this 
late  hour  to  retrieve  the  honor  of  the  nation.  Honor 
without  duty  is  impossible.  The  people  should  stop 
asking,  "What  may  we  do,  what  are  our  rights? "  and 
ask  instead,  "  What  must  we  do,  what  are  our  duties  ?  " 
There  should  be  no  quibbling,  no  search  through  dusty 
books,  no  rejuvenation  of  antiquated  laws.     All  they 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        371 

need  is  to  look  into  their  hearts  like  men,  resolved  not 
to  be  swayed  by  their  sympathies,  but  to  act  according 
to  their  duty.  Let  America  take  a  leaf  from  the 
courageous  diplomacy  of  Holland;  call  a  spade  a 
spade;  and  when  she  has  truly  understood  the  "in- 
fringement of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  law 
of  nations''  of  which  England  and  her  allies  have 
been  guilty,  let  her  not  connive  in  it ! 

Let  her  do  something.  Just  what  should  be  done  must 
depend  on  the  consensus  of  public  opinion,  uttered  so 
unmistakably  that  our  government  will  be  forced 
to  put  it  into  execution.  The  most  drastic  means  would 
be  the  complete  cessation  of  commercial  dealings  with 
the  Allies  so  long  as  the  obnoxious  Order-in-Council 
remained  in  force.  Less  comprehensive  but  possibly 
equally  effective  would  be  the  embargo  on  certain 
commodities,  either  on  munitions  of  war  or  on 
foodstuffs. 

There  are  many  arguments  in  favor  of  forbidding 
the  exportation  of  arms,  which  in  itself  appears  to 
most  people  to  be  a  singularly  nefarious  traffic  and 
one  which  will  leave  scars  long  after  the  war  in  the 
memories  of  those  whose  friends  and  relatives  have 
been  murdered  by  American  bullets. 

The  high  price  of  wheat  speaks  loudest  in  favor  of 
an  embargo  on  the  exportation  of  grain.  Few  people 
realize  to  what  extent  this  country  has  been  drained 
of  this  necessity.  According  to  Bradstreet's  of  Feb- 
ruary 2y,  1915,  the  British  importation  of  wheat  from 
American  and  Canadian  ports  from  January  14  to 
February  25,  1915,  was  as  follows,  compared  with  the 
same  period  in  19 14 : 


372  Germany's  Point  of   View 

Million  Bushels  of 
Wheat 

Week  Ending—  1915.  1914. 

Jan.    21 8.3  3-8 

"      28 8.6  ^.7 

Feb.     4 9.8  Z.7 

"      10 9.7  4.0 

"      18 10.2  3.1 

"      25 7.3  2.9 

Together    53.9  21.2 

In  six  weeks,  therefore,  the  EngHsh  importation  of 
wheat  grew  32,700,000  bushels  over  the  importation 
during  the  corresponding  six  weeks  last  year.  Can 
any  thoughtful  American,  interested  in  the  welfare  of 
his  country,  view  these  figures  without  alarm?  When 
Congressman  Gallivan  first  announced,  months  ago, 
that  an  embargo  should  be  laid  on  the  exportation  of 
wheat,  many  people  were  inclined  to  ridicule  his  idea. 
Today  there  are  thousands  who  believe  that  the  needs 
of  our  own  people  render  this  step  obligatory. 

The  above  table  is  interesting  also  from  another 
point  of  view.  It  shows  the  effect  of  the  German  sub- 
marine blockade,  which  began  on  February  18,  and 
resulted  in  a  decrease  in  importation  of  almost  three 
million  bushels,  or  the  approximate  equivalent  of  the 
average  weekly  importation  in  times  of  peace. 

If,  however,  neither  a  complete  cessation  of  com- 
mercial dealings  with  England  nor  the  declaration  of 
an  embargo  on  the  exportation  of  either  the  munitions 
of  war  or  wheat  seems  desirable,  America  has  another 
means  by  which  she  can  uphold  the  law  so  far  as  she 
is  concerned.  She  can  declare  that  she  refuses  to 
submit  to  the  British  Order-in-Council  and  that  she 
will  continue  to  trade  with  Germany.     Such  a  decla- 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        373 

ration  will,  however,  only  be  respected  if  America 
announces  that  she  will  send  convoys  with  the  ships 
bound  for  Germany.  This  will  settle  once  for  all  the 
question,  "  Is  the  high  sea  free,  or  is  it  not  ?  " 

For  more  than  one  hundred  years  America  has 
proclaimed  this  principle.  Does  she  mean  it?  In  1907, 
at  the  second  Hague  Conference,  the  principle  was 
accepted  by  twenty-one  votes  against  eleven,  Germany, 
Austria,  and  Italy  giving  their  strong  support  to 
America,  while  France,  Russia,  and  Japan  rallied  to 
America's  opponent,  England.  When  the  victory  was 
won  by  a  majority  of  almost  two  to  one,  the  American 
delegate  broke  faith  with  his  country  and  those  who 
had  supported  him,  and  withdrew  his  motion,  out  of 
love  for  England. 

And  today  the  supreme  test  has  come.  America 
can  win  respect  for  the  principle  proclaimed  as  true 
by  her  leading  men  ever  since  the  nation  was  born. 
She  can  show  whether  she  means  what  she  has  so  often 
said,  that  the  high  sea  shall  be  free  to  all.  Will  she 
do  so,  or  will  she  turn  traitor  to  her  own  principles, 
for  the  love  of  England? 

Perhaps  it  is  not  quite  true  to  say  "  for  the  love  of 
England,"  for  while  such  sentiments  may  have  swayed 
Mr.  Bryan  himself,  the  great  masses  of  the  people  are 
deterred  from  action  not  so  much  by  love  of  England 
as  by  the  feeling  that  no  action  should  be  taken  that 
could,  even  in  the  remotest  degree,  advance  the  Ger- 
man chances  of  victory.  Germany  is  still  believed  by 
many  to  be  fighting  an  unrighteous  war,  and  her 
success,  therefore,  to  represent  the  conquest  of  wrong 
over  right. 

England  knew  this,  and  that  is  why  she  cut  the 


374  Germany  s  Point  of   View 

cables  and  got  a  start  of  more  than  a  fortnight  in  her 
campaign  of  lies  and  vilification. 

There  are  today  official  records  on  file  in  the  State 
Department  in  Washington  which  exonerate  Germany 
from  the  charge  of  having  committed  atrocities  in 
Belgium.  If  they  were  pubHshed,  the  bottom  would 
be  knocked  out  from  the  anti-German  propaganda. 
No  American  paper  would  dare  to  print  any  more  of 
the  dastardly  lies  besmirching  the  honor  of  Germany. 

There  are  admirals  in  the  navy  and  officers  in  the 
army  whose  mouths  are  sealed,  but  who  know  that 
no  nation  facing  the  conditions  like  those  met  by 
Germany  in  Belgium  would  have  shown  the  forbear- 
ance that  Germany  exhibited. 

There  are  official  reports  in  the  files  of  the  several 
departments  in  Washington  which  relate  the  marvel- 
ous success  of  Germany's  reconstruction  of  Belgium. 
Thousands  of  women  and  children  have  been  freed 
from  the  slavery  in  the  mines,  and  some  of  the  German 
welfare  legislation  has  been  introduced.  The  school 
system  has  been  improved  and  all  children  have  been 
forced  to  attend  school.  This  will  wipe  out  the  terrible 
illiteracy  still  prevalent  in  the  country.  The  census  of 
1910  revealed  that  of  every  one  thousand  people  over 
fifty-five  years  of  age,  only  six  hundred  and  eighty-nine 
could  read  and  write.  And  that  in  the  richest  little 
country  of  the  world !  All  this  will  be  changed  in  the 
future,  for  even  though  Germany  evacuate  the  country 
no  government  will  be  able  to  send  the  little  children 
to  the  mines  again  instead  of  to  the  schools,  and  will 
dare  to  deprive  the  laborers  in  their  old  age  and  in 
sickness  of  the  pensions  granted  them  by  Germany. 

These  are  facts,  but  America  does  not  know  them. 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        375 

The  voices  of  individuals  are  helpless,  but  when  the 
people  as  a  whole  demand  it  the  President  cannot 
refuse.  Let  the  people  rise  and  demand  the  truth  that 
their  officials  are  keeping  from  them !  Let  them  force 
the  publication  of  the  official  documents,  let  them 
request  the  President  to  unseal  the  lips  of  those  officers 
who  know  the  truth. 

But  it  is  argued :  ''  We  know  the  truth.  We  have 
read  everything.  We  know  who  started  the  war.  Our 
minds  are  made  up."  This  was  the  belief  also  of  many 
Englishmen,  who  yet  have  changed  their  views.  How 
many  Americans  know  that  at  two  recent  meetings  of 
the  tutors  of  Oxford  University  these  words  were 
spoken :  ''  One  thing  we  must  insist  on  over  here  is 
that  this  sinister  liar,  Grey,  who  forever  has  peace  on 
his  lips,  and  war  in  his  heart,  should  go''  ?  And  again 
the  prophecy  that  before  long  Sir  Edward  Grey  would 
be  tried  for  high  treason,  because  of  his  lies  to  the 
Cabinet  and  Parliament,  and  that  the  English  people 
will  *'  send  him  to  the  gallows ''  ?  When  such  words 
can  fall  from  the  lips  of  a  scholar  like  Dr.  Frederic 
Cornwallis  Conybeare,  there  may  be  some  truth  hidden 
which  also  Americans  have  not  yet  found.  "  In 
August  and  September  and  October,"  Dr.  Conybeare 
says, 

I  felt  so  sure  that  England  had  all  the  right  on  her  side 
and  Germany  all  the  wrong  that  I  hardly  troubled  to  read 
the  diplomatic  documents. 

His  awakening  began  in  November.  It  is  never  too 
late  to  seek  the  truth.  And  to  refuse  to  ask  for  the 
publication  of  the  official  documents  in  Washington 
because  one's  mind  is  made  up  is  un-American. 


376  Germany  s  Point  of   View 

There  is,  however,  another  objection.  People  say, 
"  We  do  not  care  much  for  official  reports ;  what  our 
friends  have  seen  and  told  us  counts  for  more.  They 
have  seen  the  poor  victims  of  German  atrocity  in 
Belgium,  and  that  is  enough  for  us.'' 

So  far  as  Boston  is  concerned  there  are  hundreds 
of  people  who  were  informed  by  Mr.  William  Firth 
that  his  daughter,  Mrs.  Haworth,  had  seen  little  Bel- 
gian *'  children,  one  with  one  hand  off,  and  some  have 
had  both  cut  off.''  After  the  publication  of  the  British 
official  report  that  no  such  cases  existed  in  England,* 
Mr.  Firth  has  been  forced  to  acknowledge  that  he  and 
his  daughter  were  wrong  and  that  she  had  not  seen 
any  such  cases.  The  writer  has  in  his  possession  the 
proof  of  Mr.  Firth's  first  assertion  and  also  of  his 
subsequent  confession.  The  latter  is  several  weeks 
old,  but  Mr.  Firth  has  not  yet  seen  fit  to  publish  his 
denial.  In  this  connection,  and  as  an  indication  of  the 
fact  that  Belgium,  except  in  a  few  districts,  is  not 
nearly  so  badly  off  as  America  has  been  made  to 
believe,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Mr.  Firth's 
collections  no  longer  go  exclusively  to  Belgium. 

It  is,  of  course,  impossible  at  this  distance  to  dis- 
prove every  slanderous  story  about  Germany,  but  a 
sufficient  number  of  sworn  affidavits  is  available  to 
impair  the  credibility  of  all  such  accounts. 

England  knew  what  she  was  about  when  she  ma- 
ligned the  Germans,  their  aims,  and  their  conduct  of 
the  war,  for  just  so  long  as  the  Germans  would 
appear  to  the  Americans  to  be  doers  of  evil  and  wish- 
ers of  ill,  just  so  long  she  knew  that  the  American 
sense  of  justice  would  prevent  America  from  doing 

*  See  New  York  World,  January  28,  1915. 


The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals        377 

her  duty  at  this  momentous  juncture  of  the  world's 
history. 

Everything  hinges  on  the  truth.  Germany  alone  of 
all  the  contestants  is  not  afraid  of  the  truth.  English, 
French,  Greek,  American,  and  other  papers  are  as 
freely  sold  and  read  in  Berlin  today  as  ever.  The 
Government  is  not  afraid  to  let  the  people  read  the 
false  battle  reports  and  accounts  of  home  affairs  pub- 
lished anywhere  in  the  world,  because  the  people  know 
the  truth. 

This  has  also  been  the  glorious  inspiration  of  those 
whose  faith  in  Germany  has  never  wavered,  and  espe- 
cially of  those  who  at  the  same  time  have  been  swayed 
by  faith  in  the  sense  of  justice  inherent  in  America. 
These  people  have  spoken,  not  because  Germany 
needed  any  defence,  but  because  America  needed  in- 
formation. A  public  opinion  which  is  based  on  false- 
hoods may  ruin  a  nation.  And  all  Americans  wish  to 
see  their  country  thrive. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 

HOW  ENGLAND  AND  FRANCE  WAGE  WAR 

DURING  the  American  War  of  Independence  the 
English  Government  offered  rewards  of  eight 
dollars  each  for  the  scalps  of  white  Americans.  And 
in  1782  the  governor  of  Canada  is  said  to  have  re- 
ceived 1,062  such  scalps  delivered  to  him.  Most 
American  textbooks  suppress  this  sanguinary  fact,  and 
few  people  seem  to  find  the  time  to  read  larger  his- 
tories. These  figures  are  quoted  from  England  and 
the  Peoples  of  the  World,  by  Paul  Dehn  and  Albert 
Zimmermann,  Part  I,  page  5.  But  greater  details  of 
the  English-Indian  agreement  are  conveniently  gath- 
ered in  The  Pictorial  Field  Book  of  the  Revolution, 
by  Benson  J.  Tossing,  Harper  &  Brother,  i860,  and 
in  Frank  Moore's  Diary  of  the  Revolution.  Stone's 
Life  of  Brant,  the  Indian  chieftain,  and  the  Life  of 
Mary  Jennison,  published  by  James  D.  Bemis  in  1823, 
are  also  illuminating. 

Moore's  Diary  contains  contemporary  records  of 
events,  and  volume  II,  page  75,  under  date  of  July  4, 
1778,  states  that  the  enemy,  consisting  of  1,300  Tories 
and  about  300  Indians,  delivered  196  scalps.  A  little 
further  the  following  account  is  given  of  how  the 
English  and  their  Indian  allies  treated  their  prisoners  : 

They  stripped  Captain  Bedlock,  tied  him  to  a  tree,  and 
stuck  him  full  of  sharp  splinters  of  pine  knots.  Then 
piling  a  heap  of  pine  knots  round  him,  they  set  all  on  fire ; 

378 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      379 

put  Durpee  and  Ranson  into  the  fire  and  held  them  down 
with  pitchforks. 

An  account  of  a  scalping  party  of  1781  is  thus  de- 
scribed, volume  II,  page  420: 

The  men  .  ' .  .  fell  a  sacrifice  to  savage  Indians  and 
Tories  and  experienced  that  torture  in  death  which  noth- 
ing but  British  and  savage  cruelty  could  inflict. 

It  was  this  unholy  alliance  between  the  English  and 
the  colored  savages  which  greatly  incensed  the  fathers 
of  the  Revolution  and  induced  them  to  give  it  as  one 
of  their  reasons  why  America  henceforth  could  have 
no  connection  with  England.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  says: 

[The  King  of  England]  has  endeavored  to  bring  on  the 
inhabitants  of  our  frontiers  the  merciless  Indian  Savages 
whose  known  rule  of  warfare  is  an  undistinguished  de- 
struction of  all  ages,  sexes,  and  conditions. 

The  same  rule  of  warfare  is  characteristic  of  the 
Gourkas  and  other  savage  tribes  whom  England  is 
today  employing  in  her  fight  against  her  own  kinsmen. 
How  can  Americans,  except  those  who  no  longer 
understand  the  spirit  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, condone  this  barbarous  English  custom?  And 
especially  in  Boston,  where  the  memory  of  the  English 
cruelty  should  not  be  forgotten,  for  the  invitation  ex- 
tended to  the  Indians  by  the  representatives  of  the 
British  Government  was  couched  in  these  terms :  That 
they  should  assemble  "to  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the 
blood  of  a  Bostonian."  After  the  conference,  in  which 
the  Indians  had  promised  to  war  on  the  Americans, 

to  each  Indian  were  then  presented  a  brass  kettle,  a  suit 
of  clothes,  a  gun,  a  tomahawk  and  scalping  knife,  a  piece 


380  Germany's  Point  of   View 

of  gold,  a  quantity  of  ammunition,  and  a  promise  of  a 
bounty  upon  every  scalp  he  should  bring  in.* 

This  was  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  years  ago, 
and  since  then  the  manners  of  men  have  softened. 
The  British  Government,  too,  would  consider  it  be- 
neath its  dignity  today  to  buy  the  scalp  of  an  enemy 
for  eight  dollars.  Human  life  has  risen  in  value,  and, 
as  the  letter  from  English  Minister  Findlay,  printed 
below,  indicates,  £5,000  is  the  current  price  for  the 
head  of  an  enemy. 

British  Legation 
Christiania 
Norway 
On  behalf  of  the  British  Government  I  promise  that  if, 
through  information  given  by  Adler  Christensen,  Sir  Roger 
Casement  be  captured  either  with   or   without  his   com- 
panions, the  said  Adler  Christensen  is  to  receive  from  the 
British  Government  the  sum  of  £5,000,  to  be  paid  as  he 
may  desire. 

Adler  Christensen  is  also  to  enjoy  personal  immunity 
and  to  be  given  a  passage  to  the  United  States,  should 
he  desire  it. 

M.  DE  C.  Findlay, 

H.  B.  M.  Minister. 

Sir  Roger  Casement,  whom  his  servant  was  asked 
to  sell  at  this  figure,  has  exposed  the  whole  plot  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  Sir  Edward  Grey.  The  letter  reads 
as  follows: 

Berlin,  ist  February,  191 5. 
The  Right  Honourable  Sir  E.  Grey,  Bart^  K.  G,  M.  P., 
London : 

Sir  —  I  observe  that  some  discussion  has  taken  place  in 
the  House  of  Lords  on  the  subject  of  the  pension  I  volun- 
tarily ceased  to  draw  when  I  set  out  to  learn  what  might 
be  the  intentions  of  the  German  Government  in  regard  to 
Ireland. 


*  See  Life  of  Mary  Jennison. 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      381 

In  the  course  of  that  discussion  I  understand  Lord 
Crewe  observed  that  "  Sir  Roger  Casement's  action 
merited  a  sensible  punishment/' 

The  question  raised  thus  as  to  my  action  and  your  pub- 
licly suggested  punishment  of  same,  I  propose  discussing 
here  and  now,  since  the  final  proof  of  the  actual  punish- 
ment you  sought  in  secret  to  inflict  upon  me  is,  at  length, 
in  my  possession. 

It  is  true  I  was  aware  of  your  intention  from  the  first 
day  I  set  foot  in  Norway  three  months  ago;  but  it  has 
taken  time  to  compel  your  agent  there  to  furnish  the  writ- 
ten proof  of  the  conspiracy  then  set  on  foot  against  me 
by  his  majesty's  Government.  Let  me  first  briefly  define 
my  action,  before  proceeding  to  contrast  it  with  your  own. 

The  question  between  the  British  Government  and  my- 
self has  never  been,  as  you  are  fully  aware,  a  matter  of 
a  pension,  of  a  reward,  a  decoration. 

I  served  the  British  Government  faithfully  and  loyally 
as  long  as  it  was  possible  for  me  to  do  so,  and  when  it 
became  impossible,  I  resigned.  When  later  it  became  im- 
possible for  me  to  use  the  pension  assigned  me  by  law  I 
voluntarily  abandoned  that  income  as  I  had  previously  re- 
signed the  post  from  which  it  was  derived,  and  as  I  now 
proceed  to  divest  myself  of  the  honours  and  distinctions 
that  at  various  times  have  been  conferred  upon  me  by  his 
majesty's  Government. 

I  came  to  Europe  from  the  United  States  last  October, 
i^  order  to  make  sure  that  whatever  might  be  the  course 
of  this  war,  my  own  country,  Ireland,  should  suffer  from 
it  the  minimum  of  harm. 

The  view  I  held  was  made  sufficiently  clear  in  an  open 
letter  I  wrote  on  the  17th  September  last  in  New  York, 
and  sent  to  Ireland  for  public  distribution  among  my  coun- 
trymen. I  append  a  printed  copy  of  that  letter.  It  defines 
my  personal  standpoint  clearly  enough  and  expresses  the 
views  I  held,  and  hold,  on  an  Irishman's  duty  to  his  coun- 
try in  this  crisis  of  world  affairs.  Soon  after  writing 
that  letter  I  set  out  for  Europe. 

To  save  Ireland  from  some  of  the  calamities  of  war  was 
worth  the  loss  to  myself  of  pension  and  honours  and  was 
even  worth  the  commission  of  an  act  of  technical 
"  treason." 

I  decided  to  take  all  the  risks  and  to  accept  all  the  pen- 
alties the  law  might  attach  to  my  action.    I  did  not,  how- 


382  Germany's  Point  of   View 

ever,  bargain  for  risks  and  penalties  that  lay  outside  the 
law  as  far  as  my  own  action  lay  outside  the  £eld  of  moral 
turpitude. 

In  other  words,  while  I  reckoned  with  British  law  and 
legal  penalties  and  accepted  the  sacrifice  of  income,  posi- 
tion, and  reputation  as  prices  I  must  pay,  I  did  not  reckon 
with  the  British  Government. 

I  was  prepared  to  face  charges  in  a  court  of  law;  I 
was  not  prepared  to  meet  waylaying,  kidnapping,  suborning 
of  dependents  or  "  knocking  on  the  head"  —  in  fine,  all 
the  expedients  your  representative  in  a  neutral  country 
invoked  when  he  became  aware  of  my  presence  there. 

For  the  criminal  conspiracy  that  Mr.  M.  de  C.  Findlay, 
H.  B.  M.  Minister  to  the  Court  of  Norway,  entered  into 
on  the  30th  October  last,  in  the  British  Legation  at 
Christiania,  with  the  Norwegian  subject,  my  dependent, 
Evind  Adler  Christensen,  involved  all  these  things  and 
more.  It  involved  not  merely  a  lawless  attack  upon  my- 
self, for  which  the  British  minister  promised  my  follower 
the  sum  of  £5,000,  but  it  involved  a  breach  of  international 
law  as  well  as  of  common  law,  for  which  the  British  min- 
ister in  Norway  promised  this  Norwegian  subject  full  im- 
munity. 

On  the  29th  October,  last  year,  I  landed  at  Christiania, 
coming  from  America. 

Within  a  few  hours  of  my  landing  the  man  I  had  en- 
gaged and  in  whom  I  reposed  trust,  was  accosted  by  one 
of  the  secret  service  agents  of  the  British  minister  and 
carried  off,  in  a  private  motor  car,  to  the  British  Lega- 
tion, when  the  first  attempt  was  made  on  his  honour  to 
induce  him  to  be  false  to  me. 

Your  agent  in  the  legation  that  afternoon  professed 
ignorance  of  who  I  was  and  sought,  as  he  put  it,  merely 
to  find  out  my  identity  and  movements. 

Failing  in  this,  the  first  attempt  to  obtain  satisfaction, 
Adler  Christensen  was  assailed  the  next  day,  the  30th 
October,  by  a  fresh  agent  and  received  an  invitation  to 
again  visit  the  British  Legation,  "  where  he  would  hear 
something  good." 

This,  the  second  interview,  held  in  the  early  forenoon, 
was  with  the  minister  himself. 

Mr.  Findlay  came  quickly  to  the  point.  The  ignorance, 
assumed  or  actual,  of  the  previous  day,  as  to  my  identity, 
was  now  discarded.     He  confessed  that  he  knew  me,  but 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      383 

that  he  did  not  know  where  I  was  going  to,  what  I  in- 
tended doing,  or  what  might  be  the  specific  end  I  had  in 
view. 

It  was  enough  for  him  that  I  was  an  Irish  Nationalist. 

He  admitted  that  the  British  Government  had  no  evi- 
dence of  anything  wrong  done,  or  contemplated  by  me, 
that  empowered  them  either  morally  or  lawfully  to  inter- 
fere with  my  movements.  But  he  was  bent  on  doing  so. 
Therefore,  he  boldly  invoked  lawless  methods,  and  sug- 
gested to  my  dependent  that  were  I  to  "  disappear "  it 
would  be  "  a  very  good  thing  for  whoever  brought  it 
about." 

He  was  careful  to  point  out  that  nothing  could  happen 
to  the  perpetrator  of  the  crime,  since  my  presence  in 
Christiania  was  known  only  to  the  British  Government, 
and  that  Government  would  screen  and  provide  for  those 
responsible  for  my  "  disappearance." 

He  indicated  quite  plainly  the  method  to  be  employed, 
by  assuring  Adler  Christensen  that  whoever  "  knocked 
him  on  the  head  need  not  do  any  work  for  the  rest  of  his 
life  "  and  proceeded  to  apply  the  moral  by  asking  Christen- 
sen :  "  I  suppose  you  would  not  mind  having  an  easy  time 
of  it  for  the  rest  of  your  days  ?  " 

My  faithful  follower  concealed  the  anger  he  felt  at 
this  suggestion  and  continued  the  conversation  in  order  to 
become  more  fully  aware  of  the  plot  that  might  be  devised 
against  my  safety.  He  pointed  out  that  I  had  not  only 
been  very  kind  to  him  but  that  I  "  trusted  him  inplicitly." 

It  was  on  this  "  implicit  trust "  Mr.  Findlay  then  pro- 
ceeded to  build  the  whole  framework  of  his  conspiracy 
against  my  life,  my  liberty,  the  public  law  of  Norway,  and 
the  happiness  of  the  young  man  he  sought  to  tempt  by 
monstrous  bribes  to  the  commission  of  a  dastardly  crime 
against  his  admitted  benefactor. 

If  I  could  be  intercepted,  cut  off,  "  disappear,"  no  one 
would  know  and  no  question  could  be  asked,  since  there 
was  no  Government  save  the  British  Government  knew  of 
my  presence  in  Norway  and  there  was  no  authority  I 
could  appeal  to  for  help,  while  that  Government  would 
shield  the  individual  implicated  and  provide  handsomely 
for  his  future.  Such,  in  Mr.  Findlay 's  words  (recorded 
by  me)  was  the  proposition  put  by  his  majesty's  minister 
before  the  young  man  who  had  been  enticed  for  this  pur- 
pose into  the  British  Legation. 


384  Germany's  Point  of  View 

That  this  man  was  faithful  to  me  and  the  law  of 
his  country,  was  a  triumph  of  Norwegian  integrity  over 
the  ignoble  inducement  proffered  him  by  the  richest  and 
most  powerful  Government  in  the  world  to  be  false  to 
both. 

Having  thus  outlined  his  project,  Mr.  Findlay  invited 
Christensen  to  "  think  the  matter  over  and  return  at  three 
o'clock  if  you  are  disposed  to  go  on  with  it.'' 

He  handed  him  in  Norwegian  paper  money  twenty-five 
Kroner  ''just  to  pay  your  taxi-cab  fares,"  and  dismissed 
him. 

Feeling  a  not  unnatural  interest  in  these  proposals  as 
to  how  I  should  be  disposed  of,  I  instructed  the  man  it 
was  thus  sought  to  bribe,  to  return  to  the  British  Legation 
at  three  o'clock  and  to  seemingly  fall  in  with  the  wishes 
of  your  envoy  extraordinary. 

I  advised  him,  however,  for  the  sake  of  appearances,  to 
'*  sell  me  dear  "  and  to  secure  the  promise  of  a  very  re- 
spectable sum  for  so  very  disreputable  an  act. 

Christensen,  who  has  been  a  sailor  and  naturally  has 
seen  some  strange  company,  assured  me  he  was  perfectly 
at  home  with  his  majesty's  representative. 

He  returned  to  the  legation  at  three  o'clock  and  remained 
closeted  with  Mr.  Findlay  until  nearly  5  P.  M.  The  full 
record  of  their  conversation  will  be  laid  before  you,  and 
others,  in  due  course. 

My  follower  pretended  to  fall  in  with  the  British  min- 
ister's projects,  only  stipulating  for  a  good  sum  to  be  paid 
in  return  for  his  treachery.  Mr.  Findlay  promised  in  his 
"word  of  honour"  (such  was  the  quaint  phraseology  em- 
ployed to  guarantee  this  transaction),  that  Christensen 
should  receive  £5,000  whenever  he  could  deliver  me  into 
the  hands  of  the  British  authorities. 

If  in  the  course  of  this  kidnaping  process  I  should  come 
to  harm  or  personal  injury  be  done  me,  then  no  question 
would  be  asked  and  full  immunity  guaranteed  the  kid- 
naper. 

My  follower  pointed  out  that  as  I  was  leaving  that  even- 
ing for  Copenhagen,  having  already  booked  my  compart- 
ment in  the  mail  train,  he  would  not  have  any  immediate 
chance  of  executing  the  commission. 

Mr.  Findlay  agreed  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  defer 
the  attempt  until  some  favorable  opportunity  offered  of 
decoying    me    down    to    the    coast    "  anywhere    on    the 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      385 

Skagerack  or  North  Sea,"  where  British  warships  might 
be  in  waiting  to  seize  me. 

He  entrusted  my  dependent  with  the  further  commis- 
sion of  purloining  my  correspondence  with  my  supposed 
associates  in  America  and  Ireland,  particularly  in  Ireland, 
so  that  they,  too,  might  participate  in  the  "sensible  pun- 
ishment ''  being  devised  for  me. 

He  ordained  a  system  of  secret  correspondence  with 
himself  Christensen  should  employ,  and  wrote  out  the 
confidential  address  in  Christiania  to  which  he  was  to 
communicate  the  results  of  his  efforts  to  purloin  my  papers 
and  to  report  on  my  plans. 

This  address  in  Christiania  was  written  down  by  Mr. 
Findlay  on  a  halfsheet  of  legation  notepaper  in  printed 
characters.  This  precaution  was  adopted,  he  said,  "  so 
as  to  prevent  the  handwriting  being  traced.'' 

This  document,  along  with  one  hundred  crowns  in  Nor- 
wegian paper  money  given  by  Mr.  Findlay  as  an  earnest 
of  more  to  follow  was  at  once  brought  to  me  with  an 
account  of  the  proceedings. 

As  I  was  clearly  in  a  position  of  some  danger,  I 
changed  my  plans  and  instead  of  proceeding  to  Copen- 
hagen, as  I  had  intended  doing,  I  decided  to  alter  my 
procedure  and  route. 

It  was  then,  with  this  secret  knowledge  of  the  full 
extent  of  the  crime  plotted  by  your  representative  in  Nor- 
way against  me,  that  I  left  Christiania  on  the  30th 
October. 

The  rest  of  the  story  need  not  take  so  long  in  the  telling. 

You  are  fully  aware  of  most  of  the  details,  as  you  were 
in  constant  touch  with  your  agent  both  by  cable  and 
despatch. 

You  are  also  aware  of  the  declaration  of  the  Imperial 
German  Government,  issued  on  20th  November  last,  in 
reply  to  the  inquiry  I  addressed  to  them. 

The  British  Government,  both  by  press  reports  and  by 
direct  agents,  had  charged  Germany,  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  Ireland,  with  the  commission  of  atrocious 
crimes  in  Belgium  and  had  warned  the  Irish  people  that 
their  fate  would  be  the  same,  did  Germany  win  this  war. 

Your  Government  sought  to  frighten  Irishmen  into  a 
predatory  raid  upon  a  people  who  had  never  injured  them 
and  to  persuade  them  by  false  charges  that  this  was  their 
duty. 


386  Germany's  Point  of  View 

I  sought  not  only  a  guarantee  of  German  goodwill  to 
Ireland,  but  to  relieve  my  countrymen  from  the  appre- 
hension this  campaign  of  calumny  was  designed  to  pro- 
voke and  so  far  as  was  possible  to  dissuade  them  from 
embarking  in  an  immoral  conflict  against  a  people  who 
had  never  wronged  Ireland.  That  declaration  of  the  Ger- 
man Government,  issued,  as  I  know,  in  all  sincerity,  is  the 
justification  for  my  treason.  The  justification  of  the  con- 
spiracy of  the  British  Government  and  its  minister  at 
Christiania,  begun  before  I  had  set  foot  on  German  soil, 
in  a  country  where  I  had  a  perfect  right  to  be  and  con- 
ducted by  means  of  the  lowest  forms  of  attempted  bribery 
and  corruption,  I  leave  you,  sir,  to  discover. 

You  will  not  discover  it  in  the  many  interviews  Mr. 
Findlay  had,  during  the  months  of  November  and  Decem- 
ber last,  at  his  own  seeking,  with  my  faithful  follower. 
The  correspondence  between  them  in  the  cypher  the  min- 
ister had  arranged  tells  its  own  story. 

These  interviews  furnished  matter  which  in  due  course 
I  shall  make  public.  What  passed  between  your  agent 
and  mine  on  these  occasions  you  are  fully  aware  of, 
for  you  were  the  directing  power  throughout  the  whole 
proceeding. 

Your  object,  as  Mr.  Findlay  frankly  avowed  to  the  man 
he  thought  he  had  bought,  was  to  take  my  life  with  public 
indignity  —  mine  was  to  expose  your  design  and  to  do  so 
through  the  very  agent  you  had  yourselves  singled  out  for 
the  purpose  and  had  sought  to  corrupt  to  an  act  of  singular 
infamy. 

On  one  occasion,  in  response  to  my  follower's  pretended 
dissatisfaction  with  the  amount  offered  for  betraying  me, 
you  authorized  your  agent  to  increase  the  sum  to  £10,000. 
I  have  a  full  record  of  the  conversations  held  and  of 
the  pledges  proffered  in  your  name. 

On  two  occasions,  during  these  prolonged  bargainings, 
your  minister  gave  Adler  Christensen  gifts  of  ''  earnest 
money."  Once  it  was  five  hundred  crowns  in  Norwegian 
currency;  the  next  time  a  similar  sum,  partly  in  Nor- 
wegian money  and  partly  in  English  gold.  On  one  of 
these  occasions,  to  be  precise,  on  the  7th  December  last, 
Mr.  Findlay  handed  Adler  Christensen  the  key  of  the  back 
entrance  of  the  British  Legation,  so  that  he  might  go  and 
come  unobserved  and  at  all  hours. 

I  propose  returning  this  key  in  person  to  the  donor  and 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      387 

along  with  it  the  various  sums  so  anxiously  bestowed  upon 
my  follower. 

The  stories  told  Mr.  Findlay  at  these  interviews  should 
not  have  deceived  a  schoolboy.  All  the  pretended  evi- 
dence of  my  plans  and  intentions  Adler  Christensen  pro- 
duced, the  bogus  letters,  fictitious  maps  and  charts  and 
other  incitements  to  Mr.  Findlay's  appetite  for  the  in- 
credible were  part  of  my  necessary  plan  of  self-defense 
to  lay  bare  the  conspiracy  you  were  engaged  in  and  to 
secure  that  convincing  proof  of  it  I  now  hold. 

It  was  not  until  the  3d  ultimo  that  Mr.  Findlay  com- 
mitted himself  to  give  my  protector  the  duly  signed  and 
formal  pledge  of  reward  and  immunity,  in  the  name  of 
the  British  Government,  for  the  crime  he  was  being  in- 
stigated to  commit,  that  is  row  in  my  possession. 

I  transmit  you  herewith  a  photograph  of  this  document. 

At  a  date  compatible  with  my  own  security  against  the 
clandestine  guarantees  and  immunities  of  the  British  min- 
ister in  Norway,  I  shall  proceed  to  lay  before  the  legitimate 
authorities  in  that  country  the  original  document  and  the 
evidence  in  my  possession  that  throws  light  on  the  pro- 
ceedings of  his  majesty's  Government. 

To  that  Government,  through  you,  sir,  I  now  beg  to 
return  the  insignia  of  the  Most  Distinguished  Order  of  St. 
Michael  and  St.  George,  the  Coronation  Medal  of  his 
majesty  King  George  v.,  and  any  other  medal,  honour  or 
distinction  conferred  upon  me  by  his  majesty's  Govern- 
ment, of  which  it  is  possible  for  me  to  divest  myself. 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  humble  servent, 

(Signed)     Roger  Casement. 

This  chapter  of  British  dealings  with  those  whom 
their  Government  fears,  deserves  to  be  placed  in  his- 
tory by  the  side  of  the  1,062  scalps  of  white  Americans 
delivered  to  the  governor  of  Canada  in  1782.  Posterity 
will,  no  doubt,  pass  judgment  on  the  instigator  of  this 
attempted  murder,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  and  on  his  tool, 
his  majesty's  minister,  Mr.  Findlay;  while  the  defend- 
ers of  England  in  the  present  war,  who  have  claimed 
that  Sir  Edward  Grey  stood  for  humanity  and  justice, 
will  need  some  time  to  think  matters  over. 


388  Germany's  Point  of   View 

The  same  advice  may  be  given  to  those  who  have 
condemned  the  Germans  for  their  reported  use  of 
asphyxiating  bombs  in  recent  days.  It  has  been  touch- 
ing to  read  the  indignation  of  the  editorial  writers 
since  the  German  success  near  Ypres  and  to  compare 
their  present  volubiHty  with  their  silence  in  September, 
and  whenever  since  the  use  of  asphyxiating  bombs  by 
the  French  has  been  reported.  Lest  it  appear  that 
such  reports  had  emanated  from  German  sources,  it 
may  be  well  to  quote  a  few  paragraphs  from  the  Pall 
Mall  Gazette,  London,  September  16,  1914,  page  three, 
column  five.    The  article  begins : 

DEALERS  OF  DEATH 

The  Secret  of  French  "  Hell-Producers  " 

"  TURPINITE  " 

Shells  That  Paralyse  Organs  of  the  Body 
Mr.  A.  A.  Roberts,  the  well-known  analytical  chemist, 
writes  to  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette:  An  evening  paper  of 
Thursday  last  is  responsible  for  the  following :  ''  One 
wonders  what  kind  of  shells  the  French  must  have  been 
using  to  cause  a  regiment  of  German  infantry  to  die  in 
their  trenches  standing  bolt  upright,  and  still  holding  their 
rifles  in  firing  attitude? 

"  There  is  no  longer  necessity  for  further  preserving 
privacy,  as  to  that  which  is  an  open  secret,  for  not  during 
this  colossal  struggle  could  the  enemy  hope  to  exercise 
its  clever  imitative  propensities  in  the  direction  of 
*  Turpinite.* 

"The  manufacture  of  this  latest  hell  producer  gave  the 
French  authorities  at much  food  for  reflection." 

The  article  then  goes  on  to  state  that  these  bombs 
bring  *'  death  to  every  living  thing  within  its  reach," 
because  they  produce  "complete  paralysis  of  certain 
organs  of  the  body." 

The  French  have  used  such  asphyxiating  bombs  ever 
since,  and  the  Germans  have  complained  over  and  over 


How  England  and  France  Wage  War      389 

again,  and  sent  their  proofs;  and  the  State  Depart- 
ment in  Washington  has  quietly  pigeon-holed  them 
and  the  press  has  refused  to  arouse  the  moral  indig- 
nation of  the  country  against  this  glaring  infraction 
of  the  stipulations  of  the  Hague  Convention. 

Only  last  week  Germany  announced  that  she  might 
be  forced  to  take  recriminatory  measures  if  the  French 
continued  to  use  asphyxiating  bombs. 

If,  therefore,  the  patience  of  the  Germans  broke  at 
last,  and  they  had  recourse  to  such  bombs  —  which  as 
yet  is  not  proved  —  they  are  free  from  guilt. 

English  "  murder-conspiracies  "  and  French  "  hell- 
producers!"  The  time  will  come  when  every  honest 
American  will  turn  from  such  manifestations  of  "  hu- 
manity" and  when  he  will  call  to  account  the  men 
whose  suppression  of  all  official  accounts  on  the  con- 
duct of  the  war  has  prevented  American  public  opin- 
ion from  exciting  its  tremendous  moral  weight  for 
righteousness  in  the  world. 

Truth  is  always  right,  and  to  suppress  it  for  fear 
of  being  unneutral  because  it  might  help  Germany 
is  a  course  which  will  find  its  condemnation  —  in  the 
next  generation  at  any  rate! 


CHAPTER  XXX 


SIR  EDWARD  GREY 


WHEN  Sir  Edward  Grey  authorized  the  British 
minister  to  Norway  to  set  a  price  of  £5,000 
on  the  head  of  Sir  Roger  Casement  he  followed  a 
precedent  from  the  American  War  of  Independence, 
for  the  English  Government  offered  at  that  time  to 
pay  to  the  Indians  a  stated  price  for  every  scalp  of 
an  American. 

It  is  useless  to  claim  in  extenuation  of  such  English 
behavior  that  it  conformed  to  the  spirit  of  the  times ; 
for  this  would  be  a  slander  on  Washington  and  the 
other  leaders  of  the  Revolution.  Nor  is  it  possible 
to  say  that  the  English  have  altered  their  methods 
since,  because  they  have  shown  the  same  ruthlessness 
wherever  they  have  fought  during  the  intervening  one 
hundred  and  thirty  or  forty  years.  Their  own  writers 
confess  this,  and  every  page  of  their  military  history 
—  in  China,  India,  Egypt,  and  the  Transvaal  —  is  filled 
with  such  inhumanity  that  it  has  to  be  expurgated  for 
school  use. 

During  all  this  time,  however,  England  has  pro- 
duced so  many  splendid  specimens  of  humanity  that 
the  world  at  large  has  been  led  to  believe  that  they 
and  not  their  cruel  officials  represent  the  real  England. 
And  so  they  do,  but  unfortunately  they  have  never 
been  able  to  force  their  own  government  to  apply  the 
high  principles  of   humanity  which  they  themselves 

390 


Sir  Edward  Grey  391 

are  preaching.  Lossing  put  his  finger  on  the  right 
spot  when  he  said,*  speaking  of  the  price  the  English 
commanders  placed  on  the  scalps  of  Americans: 

Their  feelings  of  humanity  doubtless  revolted  when 
coalescing  with  the  savages  of  the  forest  to  butcher  their 
brethren,  but  with  them  principle  too  often  yielded  to 
expediency. 

This  has  been  the  English  failing  right  along.  Eng- 
lishmen have  professed  greater  perfection  and  con- 
doned more  imperfection  in  their  public  men  than  any 
other  people  in  the  world,  because  with  them  political 
morality  has  meant  success. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  is  the  man  who  has  led  England 
into  this  war.  He  has  claimed  to  have  done  it  for  the 
sake  of  honor  after  all  his  endeavors  to  preserve  the 
peace  had  failed.  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  been  beheved. 
Does  he  deserve  it  ?  Has  he  spoken  the  truth  ?  Are 
his  documents  honest?  Or  has  with  him,  too,  prin- 
ciple yielded  to  expediency?  These  are  momentous 
questions,  for  if  it  should  be  found  that  his  words 
were  false  and  some  of  the  documents  of  his  Blue 
Book  forged,  a  revaluation  of  the  causes  of  the  people 
at  war  will  become  necessary. 

Ever  since  the  publication  of  the  French  Yellow 
Book,  doubts  in  the  trustworthiness  of  Sir  Edward 
Grey  have  appeared,  for  the  French  and  the  English 
sources  of  information  were  often  incompatible  with 
each  other.  This  led  to  a  systematic  study  of  Sir 
Edward's  evidence,  the  results  of  which  are  now  ready 
for  publication. 

Entirely  independent  of  these  investigations,  an 
English  scholar,  Dr.  Frederic  Cornwallis  Conybeare, 

*  The  Pictorial  Field  Book  of  the  Revolution,  Vol  I,  p.  235. 


392  Germany's  Point  of   View 

of  Oxford  University,  has  studied  the  records  avail- 
able to  him,  which  were  not  so  many  as  were  ob- 
tainable in  America,  and  has  summed  up  his  conclu- 
sions in  a  letter  to  an  American  friend  who  gave  per- 
mission for  its  publication  in  the  Vital  Issue,  New 
York,  April  17,  1915. 

The  editor  of  the  Vital  Issue  personally  vouches 
for  the  genuineness  of  the  letter  and  has  published 
a  facsimile  of  three  pages  of  it,  written  in  Dr.  Cony- 
beare's  own  hand,  in  the  Vital  Issue  of  April  24. 

The  letter  reads  as  follows: 

Oxford,  March  5,  '15. 

My  Dear  —  Many  thanks  for  your  last  letter.  I  will 
come  to  that  presently,  for  your  own  attitude  and  the 
treatment  of  the  Poles  in  Prussia  and  much  else  we  have 
written  to  each  other  about  are  things  on  the  fringe  of 
the  vital  questions  I  want  to  treat  of  in  this  letter.  I  feel 
that  I  owe  it  to  you  to  write  this,  for  I  know  that  you 
will  understand  my  feelings.  In  August  and  September 
and  October  I  felt  so  sure  that  England  had  all  the  right 
on  her  side  and  Germany  all  the  wrong,  that  I  hardly 
troubled  to  read  the  diplomatic  docum^ents  given  in  the 
English,  German,  French,  and  Russian 'books. 

At  the  beginning  of  October  my  attention  was  first 
drawn  to  the  emperor's  correspondence  with  the  Czar,  and 
I  realized  then  that  he  had  made  a  sincere  effort  for  peace 
in  the  days  of  July  28-31,  and  you  perhaps  saw  my  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  same  in  the  Nezv  York  Nation.  I  am 
not  the  man  to  see  clearly  a  point  in  favor  of  the  enemy 
and  to  conceal  it. 

Next  I  got  M.  P.  Price's  Diplomatic  History  of  the  War, 
which  gives  all  the  diplomatic  despatches,  and  correlates 
them  with  one  another  and  with  contemporary  events  so 
far  as  these  were  ascertainable  from  Reuter's  telegrams, 
newspaper  correspondents  abroad,  etc.  The  book  is  tem- 
perately written,  without  bias  or  flag-waving,  and  I  com- 
mend it  to  your  notice.  The  points  that  are  driven  into 
me  by  a  perusal  of  it  and  of  all  the  documents  are  these: 

I.  That  in  the  days  23-28  July,  Berlin  made  a  great 
mistake  in  not  obliging  Franz  Joseph    to    withdraw,    or 


Sir  Edward  Grey  393 

rather  moderate,  his  note  to  Servia.  I  quite  realize  what 
a  testy,  obstinate,  autoritaire,  and  somewhat  senile  old 
gentlemen  your  foreign  office  had  to  deal  with  in  him,  and 
I  know  how  mistaken  our  press  is  in  supposing  that  he 
consults  Berlin  before  he  acts.  On  this  occasion  he  took 
the  bit  in  his  teeth,  probably  aided  by  that  arch-oppressor, 
the  Magyar  Tisza.  On  the  other  hand,  I  recognize  the 
provocation  under  which  Austria  was.  The  murdered 
Grandduke  was  a  sensible  fellow,  whose  ambition,  I  be- 
lieve, was  to  conciliate  the  small  Slav  nations  of  Austria- 
Hungary.  He  would  have  grouped  the  Slovaks  with 
Moravia  and  Bohemia  and  have  been  crowned  their  King 
at  Prague.  He  would  also  have  grouped  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  with  Croatia,  and  have  been  crowned  at 
Agram.  The  dual  monarchy  would  thus  have  become  a 
quadruple  one.  The  Germans  in  Hungary  would,  as  far  as 
possible,  have  been  like  other  nationalities  rescued  from 
the  Magyar  and  incorporated  with  Vienna.  Roumania 
would  have  been  drawn  inside  the  Austrian  Bund  and  the 
Roumanians  of  Hungary  added  to  her.  She  could  not  have 
continued  to  stand  alone,  and  as  her  trade  with  Germany 
is  great,  and  her  natural  antipathy  to  Russia  equally  great, 
she  would  have  formed  a  permanent  alliance  with  the 
great  group  system  on  her  western  side.  Just  because  he 
was  a  constructive  statesman,  the  Archduke  was  murdered, 
for  his  accession  to  the  throne  would  have  been  the  death 
knell  of  Pan-Slav  ambitions  in  Austria-Hungary.  Pos- 
sibly Bulgaria  and  Servia  would  have  joined  on  same 
terms.  If  Germany  wins  in  this  war  she  will,  I  hope,  con- 
strain Austria-Hungary  to  reform  themselves  in  some  such 
way  as  I  have  sketched  out,  for  it  is  vital  to  Germany  to 
keep  Austria-Hungary  together,  and  to  keep  her  together 
you  must  put  the  Magyar  into  his  place.  If  she  wins  she 
will  also  have  to  group  Polish  Galicia  and  Russian  Poland 
and  East  Posen  together  and  give  them  some  home  rule 
show  of  their  own ;  the  Poles  are  so  thoroughly  Latinized 
that  their  sympathies  would  always  lie  with  Vienna  and 
South  Germany,  rather  than  with  Russia.  The  German 
Empire  on  the  west  of  this  great  congeries  would  act  as 
a  centre  of  gravity  to  it,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  the  whole 
might  not  have  been  drawn  into  the  German  customs 
union.  It  is  then,  in  my  opinion,  a  terrible  pity  the  Arch- 
duke was  murdered,  certainly  if  my  idea  of  his  policy  is 
correct. 


394  Germany's  Point  of   View 

2.  Sir  Edward  Grey  had,  behind  our  backs,  mortgaged 
our  fleet,  our  only  serious  arm,  to  France  unconditionally. 
I  believe  only  Asquith  and  two  or  three  other  members 
of  the  cabinet  were  in  this  secret.  The  public  knew,  in  a 
vague  way,  of  the  Triple  Entente,  but  no  one  suspected 
that  Grey's  diplomacy  had  left  us  no  choice  of  our  quar- 
rels, and  that  we  were,  by  it,  as  much  lashed  to  Russia's 
chariot  wheels  as  France. 

3.  In  spite  of  the  affinity  of  Servian  language  and  re- 
ligion to  Russia,  I  do  not  believe  Petersburgh  cared  for 
Servia,  save  as  a  lever  with  which  to  disintegrate  Austria. 
Bulgaria  is  as  close  to  Russia  in  these  ways,  yet  was 
cynically  sagrificed  by  Russia  after  the  war  with  Turkey, 
partly  because  she  came  out  of  it  stronger  than  Russia 
liked,  and  partly  because  she  did  not  serve  so  well  as  a 
lever  against  Austria.  To  go  a  step  further  back,  Austria 
courted  risk  in  this  danger  in  1908  by  not  getting  consent 
of  signatory  powers  of  Berlin  treaty  of  1878,  before  she 
threw  off  the  suzerainty  of  Turkey,  and  the  Kaiser,  like 
a  foolish  fellow,  went  and  crowed  over  Russia  when  she 
had  climbed  down  in  a  case  where  for  once  she  was  not 
wrong. 

4.  When  the  crisis  began  on  July  24,  Sazonof  and  Cam- 
bon  at  once  set  to  work  to  drag  Grey  by  his  heels  into 
"  complete  solidarity  "  with  Russia  and  France  in  the  com- 
ing conflict.  Had  Grey  only  followed  the  advice  of 
Buchanan,  our  ambassador  in  Russia,  we  would  not  have 
gone  in,  for  the  latter  told  Sazonof  straight  out  that 
''  England's  interests  in  Servia  were  nil,  and  a  war  on 
behalf  of  that  country  would  never  be  sanctioned  by  British 
public  opinion."  Instead  of  adhering  to  this  advice,  sen- 
sible in  itself  and  truly  reflecting  the  feelings  of  most  of 
our  cabinet,  of  our  Parliament  and  electorate,  Grey  set 
himself  to  follow  Sazonof,  who  has  had  him  in  his  waist- 
coat pocket  for  a  long  time  past.  I  gave  him  credit  for 
having  wanted  peace,  but  Sazonof  worked  on  this  side  of 
him  and  got  him  to  believe  that  Germany  would  back 
down  if  he  assured  Lichnowsky  (as  he  did  on  July  29,  see 
White  Book,  89)  that  England,  if  the  war  spread,  would 
go  in  with  France  and  Russia.  The  stupid  ass  could  not 
see  that  Sazonof,  once  assured  of  English  support,  of  Eng- 
lish money  and  fleet,  would  steam  straight  ahead  and  set 
himself  to  provoke  the  Kaiser  to  declare  war.    Thus,  in- 


Sir  Edward  Grey  395 

stead  of  securing  peace  as  he  hoped,  he  took  the  very  Hne 
that  must  lead  to  war. 

5.  Germany  was  quite  ready  to  take  on  France  and 
Russia  if  they  gave  her  a  chance,  but  did  not  want  to  take 
on  us  as  well ;  and  that  is  why  Bethmann-Hollweg,  on  the 
afternoon  of  July  29,  as  soon  as  he  heard  of  the  hostile 
attitude  Grey  had  taken  up  to  Lichnowsky  (see  our  White 
Book,  89)  sent  in  hot  haste  to  Goschen  at  11  P.  M.  to  make 
a  bid  for  our  neutrality  (White  Book,  85),  and  the  same 
night  at  2  A.  M.  to  Sazonof  (ibid.  97).  That  Count 
Pourtales,  a  man  whom,  from  all  I  have  read  about  him, 
I  should  dearly  like  to  meet,  "  completely  broke  down  "  in 
this  interview  and  "  appealed  to  Sazonof  to  make  some 
suggestion  which  he  could  telegraph  to  the  German  Gov- 
ernment as  a  last  hope,"  proves  how  anxious  Germany  was 
to  keep  the  peace  at  this  time.  But  Sazonof  already  knew 
from  Paul  Cambon  of  Grey^s  virtual  ultimatum  (ibid.  89) 
to  Lichnowsky,  and  was  inexorable.  The  more  Germany 
yielded,  the  more  provocative  and  imperious  he  became. 

6.  Germany's  one  aim  now  was  to  avoid  a  war  in  which 
England  would  almost  certainly  join,  "  drawn  in,"  as  Grey 
puts  it,  by  his  secret  agreement  with  France  and  through 
France  with  Russia.  Accordingly  Germany  accepted  any 
terms  from  Sazonof,  and  urged  Austria  to  accept  them. 
Sazonof  (ibid.  133)  admits  to  de  Etter  that  Austria  ac- 
cepted them  and  had  done  so  already  when  he  mobilized 
against  Germany,  I  believe  with  the  express  intention  of 
provoking  the  Kaiser  to  war,  in  which  (with  the  help  of 
the  war  party  in  Berlin)  he  succeeded. 

7.  Meanwhile  Grey  had  great  difficulty  with  the 
cabinet,  a  majority  of  whom  flatly  refused  to  go  to  war 
with  Germany  over  Servia  and  preferred  to  throw  over 
Grey's  naval  and  other  agreements  with  France  (which 
on  July  30  Cambon  urged  Grey  to  execute  without  delay, 
see  White  Book,  105).  Grey  threatened  to  resign,  but  on 
July  31  agreed  to  stay  on  until  it  was  known  if  Germany 
would  respect  or  not  Belgian  neutrality,  as  to  which,  on 
July  29  (White  Book,  85),  the  German  Chancellor  had 
spoken  ambiguously.  If  he  really  feared  that  France 
would  violate  it  he  should  have  demanded  of  us  an  as- 
surance that  we  would  defend  it  vi  et  armis  against  France. 
We  could  not  have  refused  such  an  assurance.  But  Bel- 
gian neutrality  was  the  only  thing  the  majority  in  our 
cabinet  really  cared  about,  and  unless  it  —  a  small  country 


396  Germany's  Point  of   View 

—  was  violated  by  Germany,  a  big  one  —  the  English 
people  could  not  be  relied  upon  to  join  in  any  war.  Noth- 
ing else  appealed  to  them  in  the  least,  and  not  a  soul  had 
any  idea  that  Germany  had  already  offered  to  respect  Bel- 
gium. Accordingly  on  the  afternoon  of  July  31  Goschen 
sounded  Von  Jagow  about  Belgium,  and  he  could  not 
answer  without  consulting  the  Kaiser  and  the  Chancellor. 
The  Kaiser,  ever  anxious  to  keep  us  out  (and  probably 
aware  also  that  Russia  would  retire  across  the  golden 
bridge  he  had  built  as  soon  as  ever  she  learned  that  we 
were  going  to  be  neutral  and  not  help  her  in  her  designs) 
ordered  Lichnowsky  to  offer  to  respect  Belgium  and  also 
to  guarantee  integrity  of  France  and  of  French  colonies, 
to  offer,  in  short,  any  conditions  in  order  to  keep  us  out. 
Our  cabinet  in  its  turn  anxious  only  to  get  from  Germany 
a  favorable  answer  about  Belgium  and  to  be  able  to  keep 
the  peace  with  Germany,  met  early  on  August  i  and  drew 
up  a  memorandum  about  it,  which  Grey  was  to  submit 
to  Lichnowsky.  There  was  perhaps  someone  in  the  cabinet 
who  pointed  out  that  to  challenge  Germany  to  respect 
Belgium,  after  signifying  our  intention  of  supporting 
France  anyhow,  was  a  work  of  supererogation.  It  was  in 
effect  to  say :  "  I  am  going  to  war  anyhow  with  you,"  and 
at  the  same  time:  "I  will  go  to  war  with  you  if  you 
touch  Belgium."  The  Germans  would  probably  answer, 
"  We  may  as  well  be  hanged  for  a  sheep  as  for  a  lamb, 
and  if  we  are,  anyhow,  to  fight  you,  why  should  we  forego 
the  military  advantages  of  going  through  Belgium?" 

In  our  White  Book,  No.  123,  may  be  read  Grey's  own 
abstract  of  his  conversation  with  Lichnowsky.  At  about 
1 130,  on  August  I,  Lichnowsky  freely  offered  to  respect 
Belgium  and  also  to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  France, 
and  of  her  colonies,  although  France  (who  really  needed 
a  straight  waistcoat  to  keep  her  out  of  a  quarrel  which 
was  not  hers)  could  not  complain,  if  she  was  beaten,  of 
Germany  helping  herself  to  some  of  her  colonies.  Grey 
might  have  said  to  Lichnowsky  that  he  could  not  barter 
our  neutrality  against  an  undertaking  by  Germany  to  re- 
spect Belgium,  seeing  that  it  was  anyhow  Germany's 
duty  to  respect  Belgium.  However,  our  cabinet  was  in  a 
bartering  mood,  and  they  only  wanted  an  excuse  for  not 
going  to  war  with  Germany.  Lichnowsky  therefore 
adopted  the  bartering  tone  and  so  did  Grey.  Grey  evi- 
dently expected  Lichnowsky  to  offer  no  sort  of  terms,  and 


Sir  Edward  Grey  397 

when  Lichnowsky  made  the  proposals  as  he  did,  and  fur- 
thermore besought  him  to  formulate  any  conditions  on 
which  England  would  consent  to  be  neutral,  Grey  refused 
all  on  the  pretext  of  keeping  his  hands  free  (see  No.  123). 
Lichnowsky  must  have  gone  away  with  the  conviction 
that  Grey  anyhow  wanted  war. 

Now  our  cabinet  plainly  expected  Grey  to  report  to 
them  at  once  any  disposition  to  yield,  if  Germany  showed 
signs  of  it.  He  knew  that  if  he  reported  Lichnowsky's 
proposals,  the  cabinet  would  jump  at  them,  and  then  he 
would  be  unable  to  execute  his  secret  bond  to  France 
and  Russia.  What  did  he  do?  He  told  none  of  his  col- 
leagues of  them  on  August  i,  and  when  the  cabinet  met 
next  morning,  August  2,  he  concealed  them  from  the 
entire  cabinet,  as  he  did  from  the  House  of  Commons  next 
day,  August  3.  By  doing  so  he  precipitated  us  into  this 
war;  I  say  he  tricked  us  into  war;  us,  a  generous  people 
(who  —  except  for  a  few  rabid  chauvinists  on  the  Tory 
side  —  were  averse  to  war  with  Germany,  with  whom  we 
were  for  the  first  time  since  Agadir  on  cordial  terms)  into 
war  with  you.  Take  my  word  for  it,  Grey  will,  in  good 
time,  be  running  for  his  life  over  this  sinister  business. 
Bismarck,  in  1870,  modified  a  telegram  in  order  to  pro- 
voke that  owl  Louis  Napoleon  into  a  declaration  of  war; 
Grey  deliberately  concealed  from  his  colleagues  and  from 
Parliament  overtures  made  by  Lichnowsky,  which  would 
have  been  accepted  at  once ;  but  for  Grey's  action  Belgium 
would  not  have  been  turned  into  a  shambles,  and  in  all 
probability  Russia  would  have  professed  her  satisfaction 
that  Austria  had  accepted  her  terms  (dictated  by  Sazonof 
to  Pourtales  at  2  A.  M.  on  July  30)  and  have  shut  up.  I 
consider  that  Grey  acted  more  criminally  than  Bismarck 
ever  did. 

8.  Mark  the  sequel.  War  ensued  over  Belgium,  and 
weeks  of  it  ensued  before  anyone  knew  of  the  interview 
given  in  White  Book,  123.  As  soon,  however,  as  Par- 
liament met  on  August  27,  Keir  Hardie,  who  spotted  it, 
asked  Grey  whether  he  had  submitted  Lichnowsky's  pro- 
posals to  the  cabinet  and  why  they  had  not  been  made 
the  basis  of  peace  with  Germany.  Grey  in  his  answer 
acknowledged  that  he  had  disclosed  it  to  no  one  at  the 
time,  and  excused  himself  on  the  ground  that  Lichnowsky 
in  No.  123  was  speaking  de  suo  and  without  authority  from 
Berlin.     He  acknowledged  that  Lichnowsky  was  actuated 


398  Germany's  Point  -  of   View 

in  making  these  proposals  by  a  sincere  desire  for  peace 
with  us,  but  declared  that  Berlin  in  the  background  was 
as  sincerely  working  for  war.  And  yet  he  must  have  been 
well  aware  that  Lichnowsky  was  acting  on  instructions 
from  Berlin,  as  Lichnowsky's  three  despatches  sent  to 
Berlin  about  that  interview  at  1:15  P.  M.,  5:30  P.  M. 
and  8 130  P.  M.  on  August  i  sufficiently  prove.  Moreover, 
had  Grey  not  known  that  Lichnowsky's  proposals  were 
authoritative  and  bound  the  German  Government  he  would 
never  have  wired  them  at  once  to  Goschen,  lest  the  latter 
should  get  at  cross  purposes  with  our  Foreign  Office  in 
the  matter.  All  Grey's  answers  to  Keir  Hardie  on  August 
2^  are  thus  a  model  of  hard  lying,  suppressio  vert  and  sug- 
gestio  falsi.  Naturally  the  House  of  Commons,  having 
been  utterly  hoodwinked  by  him,  applauded.  Presently 
they  will  send  him  to  the  gallows.  I  doubt  if  even  Asquith 
knew  of  this  crime,  for  on  August  6  he  based  his  whole 
argument  on  White  Book,  85,  but  if  he  really  was  Grey's 
accomplice,  he  will  swing  too.  I  fancy  Lloyd  George  —  a 
plastic  tool  in  Grey's  hands  —  begins  to  smell  a  rat,  for 
he  is  going  about  the  country  now  protesting  loudly  that 
he  and  the  English  democracy  could  and  would  never  have 
been  induced  to  go  to  war  except  by  the  aggression  on 
Belgium.  And  that  was  certainly  so.  Look  at  last  Sat- 
urday's Economist,  edited  by  that  decent  fellow  Hirst,  and 
you  will  read  how  the  whole  business  community  in  London 
and  elsewhere  suddenly  swing  round  in  favor  of  war  on 
August  5,  having  till  then  abhorred  the  idea  of  war  with 
Germany. 

9.  And  this  shows  what  a  calamitous  error  it  was  for 
Germany  to  invade  through  Belgium.  It  was  bad  enough 
ior  the  Kaiser  to  send  his  ultimatum  on  August  i,  instead 
of  waiting  to  see  if  Russia  would  not  send  him  one,  as  she 
might  very  likely  have  done,  though  I  doubt  if  without 
being  fairly  certain  of  us  she  would  have  done  so,  cer- 
tainly not  had  we  declared  our  neutrality  in  time.  The 
Belgian  populace  were  sure  to  assail  the  invading  army; 
that  led  to  terrible  excesses;  and  the  wringing  of  large 
fines  out  of  the  poor  starving  population  has  accumulated 
in  Italy  —  of  which  I  read  in  the  papers  —  and  in  America 
a  bitterness  against  Germany  which  a  more  generous  and 
humane  treatment  of  Belgium  would  have  avoided.  Of 
course  I  do  not  believe  all  the  atrocities  retailed  in  our 
papers.    Allowing  one  apache  for  every  500  soldiers  that 


Sir  Edward  Grey  399 

went  through  Belgium  you  would  get  2,000  of  them,  and 
that  would  explain  as  much  of  the  stories  as  is  likely  to 
be  true.  You  cannot  avoid  a  sprinkling  of  apaches  in 
every  army,  and  the  remarks  of  the  authors  of  the  History 
of  the  Boer  War,  compiled  for  the  German  general  staff 
about  the  atrocities  our  men  were  accused  of  in  the  Trans- 
vaal (not  only  abroad  but  in  England)  are  sound  and 
full  of  common  sense. 

10.  I  trust  that  Germany  will  respect  the  "  positively 
formal  assurance  (made  on  August  4  in  London)  that, 
even  in  the  case  of  armed  conflict  with  Belgium,  Germany 
will,  under  no  pretence  whatever,  annex  Belgian  ter- 
ritory.*' I  believe  on  that  basis  and  on  an  undertaking 
of  Germany  to  evacuate  France,  Wilson  could  restore 
peace  between  our  two  countries  tomorrow,  and  put  an 
end  to  all  this  useless  murder. 

One  thing  we  must  insist  on  over  here  is  that  this  sin- 
ister liar.  Grey,  who  forever  has  peace  on  his  lips  and  war 
in  his  heart,  should  go.  We  cannot  trust  him  and  his  ac- 
complice Sazonof  to  make  peace  for  England. 

11.  I  have  said  nothing  of  another  side  of  the  whole 
wretched  matter,  that  is  of  the  wicked  press  campaign 
which  for  years  preceded  this  war  in  both  countries.  Too 
many,  even  sensible.  Englishmen  had  derived  from  it 
the  feeling  that  Germany  wanted  to  attack  us,  and  for  that 
reason  were  ready  to  condone  our  attacking  her,  in  case 
France  was  at  war  with  her.  I  am  not  surprised  if  the 
suspicions  Germans  entertained  of  our  desire  to  "  down  " 
Germany  at  the  first  opportunity  seem  to  them  to  have 
been  verified  by  this  war.  In  point  of  fact  that  was  upper- 
most in  English  minds  all  through,  and  what  has  poured 
over  two  millions  of  our  youth  into  the  army  was  very 
respectable  wrath  at  the  treatment  of  Belgium.  Nothing 
else  would  have  rallied  the  nation  to  the  Government. 
Grey  had  respeatedly  assured  the  country  that  our  entente 
with  Russia  and  France  was  in  no  way  directed  against 
Germany. 

12.  I  don't  know  if  you  sent  me  Bernstein's  fac-similes 
of  sundry  "  military  conversations  "  between  our  military 
attache  at  Brussels  and  the  Belgian  generals.  The  first 
is  an  outline  of  a  conversation,  at  the  end  of  it  the  word 
fin  (preceding  name  of  month)  only  implies  that  it  was 
held  at  that  date.  The  printed  copy  turns  fin  into  fini, 
and  this  is  translated  concluded,  making  it  appear  to  be 


400  Germany's  Point  of   View 

a  diplomatic  instrument  or  treaty,  with  binding  power, 
which  it  was  not.  It  is  a  mere  ehauche,  as  is  also  the  next 
document.  Fini  could  anyhow  in  French  not  mean  con- 
cluded or  ratified  as  Bernstein  seems  to  think,  but  only  the 
explicit  you  put  at  end  of  a  book.  No  doubt  in  the  sec- 
ond document  our  military  attache  proposes  to  land  Eng- 
lish troops  to  defend  Belgium  in  case  she  were  invaded 
whether  Belgium  asked  for  them  or  not,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  that  any  agreement  in  that  sense  was  reached  by 
our  Foreign  Office.  I  much  doubt  it  and  our  Foreign 
Office  denies  it.  It  is  a  pity  that  the  Belgians  did  not 
follow  the  advice  of  Leopold  ii,  given  twenty-five  years 
ago,  and  put  up  an  army  like  Switzerland,  suitable  to  their 
population  and  means;  for  then  the  German  staff  would 
never  have  planned  forcing  the  Meuse,  defended  as  it 
would  have  been  by  100,000  men,  at  the  outset  of  a  cam- 
paign. They  knew  quite  well  that  we  as  guarantors  of 
their  country's  neutrality  were  in  the  position  of  a  man 
who,  having  £5,  backs  a  bill  for  a  million  sterling. 

And  now  I  have  said  not  all  it  was  in  my  mind  to  say, 
but  as  much  as  you  will  want  to  read.  You  are  free  to 
show  this  letter  to  anyone  you  like  and  even  print  it  if 
you  like.  I  do  not  see  that  any  harm  could  result  from  my 
opinions  being  known,  and  I  air  them  very  freely  here, 
already  at  two  meetings  of  university  tutors  and  the  other 
night  before  the  Fabians.  I  am  writing  a  pamphlet  on 
Grey  for  the  Labor  League.  Meanwhile  we  must  go  on 
fighting  it  out,  but  I  hope  not  for  long. 
Ever  yours  sincerely, 

(Signed)     F.  C.  Conybeare. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 


SIR    EDWARD  S    EVIDENCE 


D 


R.  CONYBEARE'S  letter,  given  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  contains  these  significant  words : 


In  August  and  September  and  October  I  felt  so  sure 
that  England  had  all  the  right  on  her  side  and  Germany 
all  the  wrong  that  I  hardly  troubled  to  read  the  diplomatic 
documents. 

Then  a  certain  event  made  him  hesitate  and  ask 
whether  it  was  possible  that  England,  or  at  least  her 
leading  man,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  might  be  in  error. 
He  studied  the  evidence,  and  as  the  result  of  his 
studies  reached  the  conclusion  that  before  long  Eng- 
land would  find  Sir  Edward  Grey  guilty  of  treason 
and  send  him  to  the  gallows,  for  it  was  Grey's  trea- 
sonable lies,  he  thought,  that  had  rushed  England 
into  the  war. 

How  the  English  will  choose  to  deal  with  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  is  their  own  affair,  but  it  is  the  affair  of 
the  whole  world  to  enquire  whether  Dr.  Conybeare's 
conclusions  concerning  Sir  Edward's  reliability  are 
correct. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  America  Sir  Edward's 
evidence  has  been  generally  credited  as  true.  Pro- 
fessor Samuel  Harden  Church,  President  of  the  Car- 
negie Institute,  Pittsburg,  and  author  of  The  Life  of 
Cromwell,  may  be  cited  as  a  typical  American,  un- 
willing to  form  a  rash  judgment,  and,  therefore,  eager 
to  study  the  evidence.     He  has  published  his  conclu- 

401 


402  Germany's  Point  of  View 

sions  in  a  pamphlet  called  Reply  to  the  German  Pro- 
fessors, and  says :  / 

We  are  all  going  deeper  than  the  surface  in  our  search 
for  the  truth.  ...  In  the  EngHsh  White  Paper  we 
have  all  the  telegrams  which  were  exchanged  between 
the  English  Foreign  Office  over  the  signature  of  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  and  the  diplomatic  officials  of  the  other  pow- 
ers, including  the  Imperial  Chancellor  of  Germany.* 

And  speaking  of  the  American  judgment,  Pro- 
fessor Church  says : 

That  judgment  is  not  based  upon  the  lies  and  calumnies 
of  the  enemies  of  Germany,  nor  upon  the  careless  pub- 
lication contained  in  newspapers,  but  upon  a  profound 
study  of  the  official  correspondence  in  the  case,  .  .  . 
and  the  public  demand  for  this  indisputable  evidence  has 
not  yet  been  satisfied,  f 

Professor  Church,  therefore,  it  -w'lW  be  seen,  has 
placed  implicit  confidence  in  the  completeness  and 
honesty  of  Sir  Edv^ard's  evidence.  Nor  is  he  alone 
in  his  belief.  So  keen  an  observer  of  America  as 
Viscount  Bryce  w^as  quoted  in  the  Boston  Herald  of 
March  22,  1915,  as  follows: 

As  to  the  general  feeling  in  the  United  States,  my 
correspondents  entirely  agree  with  what  may  be  gathered 
from  the  leading  American  journals.  The  vast  majority 
of  the  people  condemn  the  German  Government,  laying 
the  blame  for  the  outbreak  of  the  strife  upon  it  and 
Austria.  This  they  do  not  from  racial  sympathy  with 
England  nor  from  their  traditional  friendliness  to  France, 
but  because  their  reading  of  the  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence in  the  first  half  of  August  convinced  them  that  Ger- 
many zvas  the  aggressor  and  put  herself  utterly  in  the 
wrong. 


*  Page  6. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  13. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  403 

Both  Viscount  Bryce  and  Professor  Church  are 
right  in  explaining  the  pro-British  attitude  of  many 
Americans  by  their  study  of  the  official  documents. 
The  British  Blue  Book,  first  published  as  a  White 
Paper,  reads  well.  It  did,  therefore,  not  occur  to  the 
people  that  its  trustworthiness  was  doubtful.  For 
these  reasons  a  somewhat  detailed  investigation  of 
Sir  Edward's  Evidence  is  in  place  even  at  this  late 
hour. 

Sir  Edward  delivered  his  great  speech  in  Parlia- 
ment on  the  evening  of  August  3,  19 14.  The  speech, 
which  was  unsupported  by  documentary  evidence  —  for 
the  Blue  Book  was  not  issued  until  August  6  —  was  at 
once  cabled  to  America.  It  should  have,  and  was  be- 
lieved to  have,  contained  the  salient  points  and  facts, 
for  England  went  to  war  on  the  information  given  by 
Sir  Edward  Grey  on  August  3,  and  was  at  war  with 
Germany  before  the  telegrams  were  published. 

Nobody  can,  of  course,  expect  a  minister  to  include 
every  despatch  in  a  speech.  But  he  has  the  right  to 
assume  that  the  minister  has  not  suppressed  such  in- 
formation as  would  have  made  his  country  keep  the 
peace.  Dr.  Conybeare  and  many  Englishmen  believe 
that  Sir  Edward  suppressed  such  information,  and 
that  if  he  had  divulged  it,  peace  would  have  been  pre- 
served. Whatever  view  one  wishes  to  take  of  this 
subject,  the  fact  is  established  that  Sir  Edward's 
speech  was  accepted  by  many  Americans  and  by  most 
Englishmen  as  a  fair  and  honorable  statement  of  the 
facts.  For  this  reason  Dr.  Conybeare's  letter  is  of 
great  importance. 

But  it  is  possible  to  go  even  farther  than  the  Oxford 
scholar  and  charge  Sir  Edward  not  only  with  unfor- 


404  Germany's  Point  of   View 

tunate  omissions,   but   also   with   positive    falsehood. 
He  said  in  his  speech  {Blue  Book,  p.  134), 

We    have    disclosed    the    issue,    the    information    whicli 
we  have. 

When  he  said  this  he  had  not  disclosed  the  informa- 
tion he  had  on  the  following  important  points : 

(i),  The  telegrams  exchanged  between  the  royal 
houses  of  London,  Berlin,  and  St.  Petersburg,  in 
which  many  people  see  the  sincere  efforts  of  the  Ger- 
man Emperor  to  preserve  peace;  (2),  the  final  offer 
of  Germany  made  by  the  German  Ambassador,  and 
published  later  as  Number  123  of  the  Blue  Book;  (3), 
the  full  promise  made  to  France,  which  has  never  been 
published  by  England,  and  seems  to  have  been  un- 
known even  to  Dr.  Conybeare;  (4),  the  British-Rus- 
sian naval  agreement,  without  which  Russia  would 
never  have  dared  to  risk  a  war;  (5),  the  ''conversa- 
tions "  between  the  British  and  Belgian  general  staffs, 
which  had  given  to  England  all  the  military  secrets  of 
Belgium,  and  in  a  war  between  Germany  and  England 
made  it  practically  impossible  for  Belgium  to  remain 
a  neutral  outsider. 

The  first  of  these  omissions  is  sufficiently  discussed 
by  Dr.  Conybeare.  The  second,  however,  grows  more 
formidable  w^hen  one  compares  Sir  Edward's  excuse 
why  he  did  not  mention  the  final  liberal  offer  of  Ger- 
many with  a  message  he  sent  to  France.  It  will  be 
remembered  from  Dr.  Conybeare's  letter  that  Sir  Ed- 
ward explained,  when  he  was  challenged  in  Parlia- 
ment late  in  August,  that  h€  had  thought  the  offer 
had  been  made  unofficially  by  the  German  Ambassa- 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  405 

dor,  and  not  by  Germany.  Dr.  Conybeare  tried  to 
prove  the  falsity  of  this  excuse  by  innuendo,  and  has 
made  a  strong  case.  The  whole  matter,  however,  is 
clinched  by  Number  126  of  the  French  Yellow  Book,'^ 
where  the  French  Ambassador  reports  home  his  con- 
versation with  Sir  Edward  Grey  concerning  Ger- 
many's offer.  He  writes  under  date  of  August  i, 
1914: 

Sir  Edward  Grey  has  told  me  that  in  the  council  this 
morning  the  Cabinet  considered  afresh  the  situation. 
Germany  having  demanded  from  England  a  declaration 
of  neutrality,  and  not  having  obtained  it,  the  British 
Government  remained  master  of  its  actions. 

There  is  not  one  word  here  of  an  ''  unofficial "  offer., 
On  the  contrary,  the  friendly  proposals  are  presented 
to  France  as  a  demand  made  by  Germany. 

When  Sir  Edward,  therefore,  told  Parliament  that 
he  had  disclosed  his  information,  although  he  had  not 
mentioned  this  offer,  he  did  not  speak  the  truth.  And 
when  he  later  told  Parliament  that  he  had  believed 
the  offer  to  have  been  unofficial,  he  either  told  a  false- 
hood to  Parliament  or  he  had  told  one  to  Paul  Cambon 
on  August  I,  19 1 4. 

And  even  this  is  not  all,  for  Sir  Edward  actually 
spoke  as  follows  on  August  3  {Blue  Book,  pp.  128, 
129): 

But  I  understand  that  the  German  Government  would 
be  prepared,  if  we  would  pledge  ourselves  to  neutrality, 
to  agree  that  its  fleet  would  not  attack  the  northern  coast 
of  France.  I  have  only  heard  that  shortly  before  I  came 
to  the  House,  but  it  is  far  too  narrow  an  engagement 
for  us. 


*  It  is  a  strange  fact  that  Dr.  Conybeare  has  nowhere  made 
use  of  the  French  Yellow  Book, 


4o6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

He  had  heard  it  on  August  i,  and  had  heard  much 
more,  too,  so  that  the  last  sentence  is  a  deliberate  false- 
hood. The  German  offer  of  August  i  reads  (Blue 
Book,  No.   123)  : 

He  [the  German  Ambassador]  asked  me  whether  if 
Germany  gave  a  promise  not  to  violate  Belgium  neu- 
trality we  would  engage  to  remain  neutral.  .  .  .  The 
Ambassador  pressed  me  as  to  whether  I  could  not  formu- 
late conditions  on  which  we  would  remain  neutral.  He 
even  suggested  that  the  integrity  of  France  and  her 
colonies  might  be  guaranteed. 

Under  this  liberal  offer  Sir  Edward  might  have  se- 
cured the  neutrality  of  Belgium,  the  integ'rity  of 
France  and  her  colonies,  and  the  German  agreement 
not  to  attack  the  northern  coast  of  France  with  her 
fleet,  exactly  as  Germany  had  refrained  from  doing  in 
1870.  In  fact,  he  might  have  avoided  the  war.  For 
France  would  have  refused  to  support  Russia,  unless 
she  had  been  sure  of  the  support  of  England,  and  alone 
Russia  would  not  have  risked  a  war. 

One  also  should  remember  that  Sir  Edward  declined 
this  German  offer  with  the  words,  "  I  could  only  say 
that  we  must  keep  our  hands  free,"  and  that  when  he 
said  this  he  had  twice  before,  on  the  preceding  day 
and  on  this  very  day,  pledged  himself  personally  to 
the  French  Ambassador  and  promised  to  secure  the 
support  of  the  Cabinet  for  France.  The  dealings  of 
Sir  Edward  Grey  in  this  entire  matter  have  been  fully 
exposed  in  the  discussion  of  the  French  Yellow  Book. 

The  third  point  mentioned  above  as  falsely  stated  in 
Sir  Edward's  speech  of  August  3,  was  the  assurance 
which  he  said  he  had  given  to  France.  There  is  a 
discrepancy  between  the  message  he  actually  sent  to 
France  and  the  message  he  told  Parliament  the  Cab- 


Sir  Edzvard's  Evidence  407 

inet  had  authorized  him  to  send.  The  passage 
from  the  speech  (Blue  Book,  p.  128),  reads  as  fol- 
lows: 

Yesterday  afternoon  I  gave  to  the  French  Ambassador 
the  following  statement: 

I  am  authorized  to  give  an  assurance  that  if  the  Ger- 
man fleet  comes  into  the  channel  or  through  the  North 
Sea  to  undertake  hostile  operations  against  the  French 
coasts  or  shipping,  the  British  fleet  will  give  all  the  pro- 
tection in  its  power.  This  assurance  is,  of  course,  sub- 
ject to  the  policy  of  His  Majesty's  Government  receiv- 
ing the  support  of  Parliament,  and  must  not  be  taken 
as  binding  His  Majesty's  Government  to  take  any  action 
until  the  above  contingency  of  action  by  the  German 
fleet  takes  place. 

The  message  which  the  French  Ambassador  sent 
home  on  August  3  (Yellow  Book;  No.  143),  reads  as 
follows : 

Sir  Edward  Grey  has  authorized  me  to  tell  you  that 
you  may  inform  Parliament  that  today  he  made  declara- 
tions in  the  Commons  as  to  the  present  attitude  of  the 
British  Government,  and  that  the  chief  of  these  declara- 
tions was  as  follows: 

If  the  German  fleet  cross  the  Straits  or  go  north  in 
the  North  Sea  in  order  to  double  the  British  Isles  with 
a  view  to  attacking  the  French  coasts  or  the  French 
navy,  or  to  disturbing  the  French  mercantile  marine,  the 
British  fleet  will  intervene  in  order  to  give  the  French 
marine  entire  protection,  so  that  from  that  moment  on 
England  and  Germany  would  be  in  a  state  of  war. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  pointed  out  that  the  mention  of  oper- 
ations through  the  North  Sea  implied  protection  against 
a  demonstration  in  the  Atlantic  ocean. 

The  declaration  with  regard  to  the  intervention  of  the 
British  fleet,  of  which  I  gave  you  the  text  in  my  telegram 


4o8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

of  August  2,*  is  to  be  regarded  as  binding  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. Sir  Edward  Grey  assured  me  of  this,  and  added 
that  the  French  Government  'was  therefore  in  a  position 
to  bring  it  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Chambers. 

Who  v^^as  in  error  ?  Did  Sir  Edv^ard  Grey  give  the 
above  quoted  message  to  the  French  Ambassador,  or 
did  he  not?  The  French  Prime  Minister,  M.  Viviani, 
addressed  the  French  Chambers  on  August  4  ( Yellozv 
Book,  No.  159),  and  there  repeated  Sir  Edward  Grey's 
declaration  ending  with  the  words,  "  so  that  from  that 
moment  on  England  and  Germany  will  be  in  a  state 
of  war ! "  and  continued,  "  From  now  on,  therefore, 
the  British  fleet  covers  our  northern  and  western 
coasts." 

Such  a  public  announcement,  it  would  seem,  could 
not  have  been  made  without  contradiction  by  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  if  it  had  not  been  true.  But  if  it  was  true. 
Sir  Edward  either  did  not  tell  Parliament  the  truth  on 
August  3,  or  if  he  did,  he  had  his  speech  revised  for 
publication.  In  either  case  the  American  reader  who 
has  based  his  opinion  at  least  in  part  on  this  speech 
must  realize  that  he  has  builded  on  sand. 

He  also  should  realize  that  Sir  Edward  uttered  this 
threat  of  war  before  a  single  German  soldier  had  en- 
tered Belgium.  Germany  has  always  claimed  that  the 
certainty  of  England's  entrance  into  the  war,  and  the 
knowledge  of  secret  understandings  between  England, 
France,  and  Belgium,  forced  her  to  anticipate  her 
opponents  or  commit  hari-kari.  In  Sir  Edward's  own 
publications  none  of  the  documents  which  prove  his 
firm  determination  to  join  France  against  Germany, 

*  This  declaration  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  given 
by  Sir  Edward  Grey  as  the  only  one  he  sent  to  France. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  409 

whether  Belgium  was  invaded  or  not,  is  printed.  This 
explains  the  discrepancy  between  his  published  version 
and  Viviani's  public  statement  of  the  British  message 
to  France. 

The  same  reason  induced  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  keep 
from  Parliament  the  naval  agreement  he  had  permitted 
to  be  made  with  Russia.  There  can  no  longer  be  any 
doubt  that  such  an  agreement  exists.  It  was  pointed 
out  above  in  the  discussion  of  the  French  Yellow 
Book  that  this  Russian  naval  agreement  is  spoken  of 
as  a  fact,  with  the  further  comment  that  its  existence 
had  made  the  German  Ambassador  pessimistic  con- 
cerning the  future  of  his  country.  And  in  Russia  the 
general  text  of  the  agreement  had  actually  been  pub- 
lished!* It  had  given  Russia  the  conviction  that  in 
case  of  a  conflict  England  would  take  her  part  and 
fight  by  her  side. 

And  even  in  America  the  conclusion  of  this  British- 
Russian  agreement  had  remained  no  secret.  It  was 
mentioned  in  the  daily  press,  and  Albert  Shaw,  editor 
of  the  American  Review  of  Reviews,  wrote  in  June 
for  publication  in  the  July  number  of  his  magazine : 

The  bitter  feeling  between  Russia  and  Austria  con- 
tinues, if  we  may  believe  the  tone  of  the  press  in  these 
two  countries,  and  the  guarded,  though  unmistakable 
utterances  of  Russian  and  Austrian  public  men.  It  is 
believed  that  Russia  is  intending  to  provoke  a  near  eastern 
crisis.  Reports  are  also  rife  that  a  secret  naval  conven- 
tion has  been  concluded  between  England  and  Russia, 
with  the  object  of  enforcing  the  demands  of  the  Triple 
Entente  against  Germany. 

Here  not  only  mention  is  made  of  the  Russo-English 
naval  agreement,  but  a  definite  hint  of  the  aggressive 

*  For  the  translation  see  p.  44 


41  o  Germany's  Point  of   View 

attitude  of  the  Triple  Entente  is  given.  Sir  Edward's 
evidence,  however,  is  so  arranged  that  the  reader  re- 
ceives the  impression  that  nothing  had  been  further 
from  the  mind  of  England,  Russia,  and  France  than 
aggressive  ideas.  What  these  ideas  were,  so  far  as 
Russia  is  concerned,  is  explained  in  the  same  number 
of  the  American  Review  of  Reviews,  which  quotes  the 
eminent  Russian  statesman,  Professor  Mitronov  of 
Moscow,  as  saying: 

Germany  has  pushed  Russia  out  of  the  Balkans  and 
put  Austria  across  her  path.  For  Russia,  however,  ex- 
tension into  the  Balkans  is  a  '*  poHtical  necessity,'*  and 
nothing  short  of  the  possession  of  the  Bosphorus  and  the 
Dardanelles  will  end  the  intolerable  situation. 

Knowing  these  wishes  of  Russia,  Sir  Edward  Grey 
entered  into  a  secret  naval  agreement  with  her, 
stiffened  her  backbone,  and  placidly  saw  her  make  her 
preparations  for  the  war.  The  same  number  of  the 
American  Reviezv  of  Reviezvs  contains  also  this  item : 

An  evidence  that  Russia  is  preparing  for  some  warlike 
movement  on  a  large  scale  is  furnished  by  a  letter  of  a 
Tiflis  correspondent  appearing  in  a  French  newspaper. 
That  part  of  the  Russian  Trans-Caucasus  territory  known 
as  Georgia  was  the  center  of  the  revolutionary  whirlwind 
of  1905- 1906,  towards  the  close  of  the  Russo-Japanese 
war.  It  seems  that  the  terrible  repressive  measures  which 
were  then  taken  to  punish  these  revolutionary  sentiments 
are  now  to  be  repeated  with  even  greater  vigor  in  the 
same  regions.  It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  ruth- 
less methods  of  Russian  militarism. 

If  such  and  similar  Russian  measures,  notably  the 
Russian  mobilization  which  has  been  discussed  above, 
were  known  to  the  Paris  press,  they  were  known  also 
to  Sir  Edward  Grey.  There  is,  however,  in  all  his  docu- 
ments not  one  despatch  that  gives  the  least  hint  that 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  411 

he  tried  to  moderate  the  Russian  aggressive  spirit. 
On  the  contrary,  he  encouraged  it,  for  nothing  was  so 
well  calculated  to  stiffen  the  Russian  military  party 
than  the  knowledge  of  the  people  that  England  had  at 
last  been  prevailed  upon  to  commit  herself,  and  had 
made  a  secret  naval  agreement  with  Russia. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  this  agreement  was  a  formal 
treaty.  It  was  a  "gentleman's  agreement,"  just  as 
the  understanding  with  France  had  been  based  on 
nothing  more  than  two  letters  exchanged  between  Sir 
Edward  Grey  and  Paul  Cambon,  the  French  Ambas- 
sador. These  Sir  Edward  was  obliged  to  lay  before 
Parliament  on  August  3,  after  he  had  repeatedly  de- 
nied in  the  House  of  Commons  that  any  understanding 
with  France  existed.  This  whole  question  of  Sir 
Edward's  quibbling  with  words  and  misinforming 
Parliament  is  fully  treated  by  C.  H.  Norman  in  a 
pamphlet,  Britain  and  The  War:  A  Study  in  Diplo- 
macy, London  and  Manchester,  19 14. 

The  French  letters  had  been  preceded  and  followed 
by  exhaustive  discussions  between  the  French  and 
British  military  authorities.  The  same  has  been  true 
of  the  Russo-English  relations  as  appears  from  the 
Russian  version  of  the  naval  agreement.  If  Sir 
Edward,  therefore,  said  to  Parliament,  "  We  have  dis- 
closed the  information  we  have,"  without  giving  his 
understanding  with  Russia,  he  conveyed  to  his  hearers 
an  impression  which  does  not  square  with  the  facts. 

And  what  can  finally  be  said  of  Sir  Edward's 
lengthy  discussion  of  the  Belgian  question  in  his 
speech  of  August  3,  without  informing  Parliament  of 
the  fact  that  negotiations  between  the  British  and 
Belgian  military  authorities  had  been  in  progress  for 


412  Germany's  Point  of  View 

years,  and  that  on  the  strength  of  such  **  conversa- 
tions" England  found  herself  in  complete  possession 
of  the  military  secrets  of  Belgium,  and  had  herself 
worked  out  a  definite  plan  of  throwing  troops  into 
Belgium?  Some  of  the  documents  which  prove  the 
close  relations  that  have  existed  for  years  between 
England  and  Belgium  were  discovered  by  the  German 
Government  in  Brussels,  and  published  in  the  North 
German  Gazette,  the  German  official  paper,  on  October 
12.  Facsimile  reproductions  of  two  ^oi  these  docu- 
ments appeared  in  the  same  paper  on  November  25, 
1914.  At  first  the  pro-Allies'  press  was  tempted  to 
doubt  the  genuineness  of  these  documents,  but  on 
January  27,  19 15,  Sir  Edward  Grey  inadvertently  ac- 
knowledged their  genuineness  in  trying  to  refute  some 
of  the  charges  against  him  that  had  been  based  on 
them. 

The  question  as  to  what  extent  these  Anglo-Belgian 
conversations  had  impaired  the  standing  of  Belgium 
as  a  neutral  country  does  not  belong  here,  and  has 
been  fully  discussed  in  earlier  chapters.  The  impor- 
tant point  in  the  appreciation  of  Sir  Edward's  trust- 
worthiness is  that  he  discussed  the  Belgian  question 
at  length  without  referring  to  the  Anglo-Belgian  un- 
derstanding, and  yet  had  the  courage  to  utter  these 
words :  ''  We  have  disclosed  the  issue,  the  information 
which  we  have." 

Quite  recently  and  after  waiting  almost  six  months 
the  Belgian  Government  has  made  a  tardy  defense 
against  the  charge  that  by  entering  into  an  Anglo- 
Belgian  military  understanding  it  had  betrayed  the 
Belgian  people.  The  censorship  is  severe,  but  enough 
news  has  leaked  through  to  make  it  probable  that  King 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  413 

Albert  and  his  government  will  find  it  exceedingly 
difficult  to  convince  the  Belgians  that  they  were  not 
responsible  for  their  sufferings,  if  the  German  publi- 
cations are  proved  to  be  true.  This  explains  King 
Albert's  tardy  defence  which  was  issued  on  March  17. 
Cabled  extracts  appeared  in  the  American  press  of  the 
following  date,  and  the  full  document  was  printed  here 
on  March  31,  1915. 

The  Belgian  defense  is  threefold:  (i),  the  German 
allegations  are  a  "  tissue  of  lies  "  and  their  "  facsimile '' 
publications  falsified;  (2),  the  measures  discussed  in 
the  documents  were  forced  upon  Belgium  by  the  Ger- 
man danger;  (3),  the  Belgian  Government  is  entirely 
innocent  of  the  charge  of  having  taken  the  measures 
rendered  necessary  by  the  German  danger  and  dis- 
cussed in  the  documents. 

Let  the  reader  pay  tribute  in  passing  to  the  magnifi- 
cent logic  of  this  defense,  and  then  proceed  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  specific  charge  of  dishonesty  made 
by  the  Belgian  Government  against  Germany.  It  is 
thus  stated : 

To  produce  an  impression  on  those  ignorant  of  the 
facts,  "  German  honesty "  suppressed,  when  the  precis 
of  the  above-named  conversation  was  published,  the  clause 
in  which  it  was  set  forth  that  the  exchange  of  opinion 
therein  recorded  had  reference  only  to  the  situation  that 
would  be  created  if  Belgian  neutrahty  had  already  been  ' 
violated. 

The  Belgian  Government  gives  to  the  allegations  of 
the  German  Chancery  the  only  answer  that  they  deserve  — 
they  are  a  tissue  of  lies,  all  the  more  shameless  because 
they  are  set  forth  by  persons  who  claim  to  have  studied 
the  original  documents.  But  what  are  the  documents 
which  Germany  produces  in  order  to  prove  Belgium 
guilty?  They  are  two  in  number:  (i).  The  narrative  of 
certain  interviews  which  took  place  between  Lieutenant 


414  Germany's  Point  of   View 

General  Ducarne  and  Colonel  Barnardiston  in  1906.  In 
the  course  of  these  interviews  the  British  officer  set  forth 
his  views  as  to  the  way  in  which  England  could  help 
Belgium  in  case  the  latter  were  attacked  by  Germany. 
One  phrase  in  the  document  clearly  proves  that  Colonel 
Barnardiston  is  dealing  with  a  hypothetical  case,  viz., 
"  the  entry  of  English  troops  into  Belgium  would  only 
take  place  after  a  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  by  Ger- 
many." The  translation  in  the  Norddeutsche  Zeitung 
[the  official  Gazette]   of  November  25  omits  this  clause. 

When  the  Belgian  Government  made  this  charge 
they  believed  that  the  German  Official  Gazette  would 
not  be  available  in  the  neutral  countries,  v^here  it  was 
hoped  the  charge  would  fall  on  fertile  ground.  The 
facts  are  as  follows :  The  sentence  appears  ( i )  in  the 
facsimile  published  by  the  Gazette,  (page  i).  It  is  a 
marginal  note  and  appears  in  exactly  the  same  position 
in  which  it  was  written  in  the  original;  (2),  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  text  (page  2,  column  4,  lines  34  to  37), 
the  following  is  written: 

In  the  document  there  is  the  following  marginal  note: 
U entree  des  Anglais  en  Belgique  ne  se  ferait  quapres  la 
violation  de  noire  neutrality  par  V  Allemagne. 

When  Dr.  Bernhard  Dernburg  issued  his  publica- 
tion of  these  documents  he  inserted  the  marginal  note 
in  the  running  text  (page  4,  column  i,  paragraph  5, 
lines  4  to  6).  It  may,  however,  well  be  asked  whether 
the  official  Gazette  did  not  give  greater  prominence  to 
this  important  sentence  by  devoting  a  paragraph  to  it 
at  the  end  of  the  translation  of  the  running  text,  than 
Dr.  Dernburg  did  by  inserting  it  in  the  text. 

The  charge  of  dishonesty,  therefore,  made  by  the 
Belgian  Government  falls  to  the  ground.  And  the 
same  is  true  of  the  second  charge  which,  in  the  Belgian 
defense,  reads  as  follows: 


Sir  Edzvard's  Evidence  415 

Moreover,  the  photograph  of  General  Ducarne's  report 
contains  the  words :  "  The  officer  with  whom  I  spoke  in- 
sists that  our  conversation  has  been  absolutely  confiden- 
tial." For  the  word  conversation  the  Norddeutsche  Zei- 
tung  substitutes  the  word  ''  convention.'^  Colonel  Barna- 
diston  is  made  to  say  that  "  our  convention  "  has  been 
absolutely  confidential ! 

Such  proceedings  need  no  commentary. 

The  facts  from  the  official  Gazette  are  these:  The 
facsimile  reproduction  of  the  letter  (page  2,  last  word 
of  line  i),  is  *' conversation,"  and  not  "convention,'' 
as  the  Belgian  charge  would  make  one  believe.  In  the 
translation  (page  2,  column  i,  line  34),  this  is  trans- 
lated with  abkommen,  which  is  perhaps  most  ac- 
curately rendered  in  English  by  "understanding." 
The  translation  into  English  is  easy  because  both  lan- 
guages possess  the  word  "conversation,"  and  in  both 
the  meaning  of  the  word  may  range  from  "  desultory 
talk  "  to  "  understanding."  In  German  the  case  is  dif- 
ferent, for  while  a  translator  who  is  not  afraid  of 
using  a  foreign  word  might  have  said  "  konversation," 
nine  people  out  of  ten  would  probably  have  rendered 
"conversation"  here  by  abkommen,  for  the  text  im- 
plies that  the  two  military  representatives  of  Great 
Britain  and  Belgium  had  come  to  an  understanding. 

The  Belgian  defense  continued: 

The  British  Government  has  always  held,  as  did  the 
Belgian  Government,  that  the  consent  of  the  latter  was 
a  necessary  preliminary  [to  the  entry  of  British  troops 
into  Belgium]. 

This  assertion  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  docu- 
ments themselves,  the  second  of  which  contains  these 
words : 


41 6  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Lieutenant-Colonel  Bridges  told  the  [Belgian]  Gen- 
eral that  ...  at  the  time  of  the  recent  events  the 
British  Government  would  have  immediately  effected  a 
disembarkment  in  Belgium  even  if  v^e  had  not  asked  for 
assistance.  The  General  objected  that  for  that  our  con- 
sent v^as  necessary. 

The  military  attache  [Lt.-Col.  Bridges]  answered  that 
he  knew  this,  but  that,  since  we  were  not  able  to  prevent 
the  Germans  from  passing  through  our  country,  England 
would  have  landed  her  troops  in  Belgium  anyhow  [en 
tout  etat  de  cause']. 

Very  interesting  also  are  the  remarks  which  Lord 
Roberts  made  in  the  British  Review  of  August,  19 13, 
and  which  are  here  quoted  from  the  Fatherland  of 
IMarch  17,  1915: 

I  do  not  think  the  nation  yet  realizes  how  near  it  was 
to  war  as  lately  as  August,  191 1.  For  many  autumn 
nights  our  home  fleet  lay  in  Cromarty  Firth  with  torpedo 
nettings  down,  with  the  gun  crews  sleeping  on  deck,  with 
a  live  projectile  ready  in  each  gun,  and  with  the  war 
heads  fitted  to  each  and  every  torpedo.  Our  Expedition- 
ary Force  was  held  in  equal  readiness  instantly  to  embark 
for  Flanders  to  do  its  share  in  maintaining  the  balance  of 
power  in  Europe. 

There  is  not  a  word  here  of  asking  the  consent  of 
Belgium.  And  whatever  the  American  press  may  say, 
no  English  officer  can  be  found  who  can  deny  on  his 
honor  that  it  had  not  been  known  for  years  in  British 
military  circles  that  England  would  send  her  troops 
to  Belgium  in  case  of  war,  whether  Belgium  wished 
this  or  no.  After  Belgium  had  given  her  military 
secrets  to  England,  who  knew  the  exact  size  of  each 
garrison,  the  number  of  guns,  how  far  they  could 
shoot,  where  each  place  was  vulnerable,  how  many 
troops  could  be  fed  in  each  village  or  town,  where  the 
Belgian  troops  would  gather,  how  they   planned  to 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  417 

provision  themselves,  and  so  on,  Belgium  v^as  no 
longer  free  to  act  as  she  chose.  When  she  first  dis- 
cussed her  military  affairs  with  Englan<i,  she  may  have 
done  so  absolutely  honestly  and  in  fear  of  an  invasion 
by  Germany.  When  her  Government  permitted  these 
**  conversations "  to  go  as  far  as  they  were  carried 
under  Sir  Edward  Grey's  instructions  this  Govern- 
ment suddenly  found  itself  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  its 
new  allies.  The  fiction  has  been  kept  up  in  the 
American  press  that  Belgium  is  not  one  of  the  Allies, 
but  a  neutral  for  whose  restoration  the  Allies  are 
fighting.  But  even  Mr.  Bryan  knows  better,  and  in 
the  famous  interview  he  granted  the  Rev.  D.  Mac- 
Fay  den  for  the  Westminster  Gazette  of  December  23, 
1914,  he  refers  to  Belgium  as  the  ally*  of  England. 
And  such  Belgium  undoubtedly  is,  and  was  even  be- 
fore the  war  began,   for  that  intimate  relations  had 

*  The  tone  of  this  interview  was  so  strongly  anti-German, 
and  the  reference  to  Belgium  as  the  ''ally"  of  England  so 
important,  if  true,  that  the  author  wrote  to  Mr.  Bryan  asking 
him  to  confirm  or  deny  the  accuracy  of  the  interview.  The 
following  courteous  reply  was  received: 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 
December  29,   1914. 
My  Dear  Sir: 

For  Mr.  Bryan  I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter 
of  December  25th  in  which  you  ask  permission  to  quote  the 
purported  interview  with  Rev.  Donald  MacFayden  on  Decem- 
ber 7th,  as  authentic. 

In  reply  I  am  directed  to  say  that  Reverend  MacFayden 
called  at  the  State  Department.  He  has  reported  the  conver- 
sation from  memory.  The  Secretary  has  no  doubt  that 
Doctor  MacFayden  tried  to  be  accurate,  but  he  would  not 
want  to  have  his  words  taken  as  an  exact  statement  of  his 
views. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  E.  C.  SWEET, 

Mr.  Edmund  von  Mach,  Confidential  Clerk. 

48  Shepard  Street,  Cambridge,  Mass. 


41 8  Germany's  Point  of  View 

been  established  between  Sir  Edward  Grey  and  the 
Belgian  Government  is  proved  by  the  Brussels  docu- 
ments. 

Like  the  ambassadorial  agreement  with  France,  and 
the  naval  agreement  with  Russia,  the  Belgian  under- 
standing had  remained  secret.  Parliament  and  the 
English  people  had  no  idea  how  far  Sir  Edward  had 
committed  them.  One  of  these  agreements  he  was 
forced  to  disclose  on  August  3,  and  in  choosing  the 
French  letters  he  gauged  wisely  the  temper  of  his 
countrymen.  He  was  equally  wise  in  refraining  from 
disclosing  the  other  two,  for  an  irate  Parliament  and 
surely  an  irate  electorate  would  have  swept  him  from 
the  stage  of  politics. 

Wise  reticence  is  an  admirable  quality,  but  to  keep 
silent  on  several  of  the  most  important  bits  of  informa- 
tion, and  yet  to  say  with  the  air  of  an  honest  man: 
"  We  have  disclosed  the  issue,  the  information  which 
we  have''  —  this  is  not  admirable. 


s 


CHAPTER  XXXII 

SIR  Edward's  evidence 
(Concluded) 

O  many  people  have  read  the  British  Blue  Book 
and  German  White  Paper  and  other  official  docu- 
ments, who  never  before  had  even  seen  such  publica- 
tions, let  alone  looked  into  them,  that  the  ethical  prin- 
ciples according  to  which  state  papers  are  edited  were 
unknown  to  them.  The  pro-English  press,  moreover, 
and  such  writers  as  James  M.  Beck,  have  led  them  to 
believe  that  governments  are  accustomed  to  publish  in 
their  various  white,  blue,  gray,  or  orange  papers  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 
This,  however,  is  nowhere  done. 

There  are  many  bits  of  information  which  come  to  a 
government  through  its  diplomatic  connections  which  it 
would  be  indelicate,  discourteous,  or  unwise  to  give  to  the 
public.  The  official  documents  on  American  foreign  rela- 
tions and  all  white,  gray,  or  orange  papers  are  "  edited." 
They  are  understood  to  be  so  by  Congress,  Parliament, 
the  Reichstag,  the  Duma,  etc.,  and  no  charge  of  dishon- 
esty can  be  maintained  against  the  respective  govern- 
ments on  that  score. 

This  whole  question  has  been  so  carefully  treated 
in  the  New  York  Times'  Current  History  of  the  War 
(Vol.  I,  No.  3,  pp.  438  ff),  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  repeat  here  the  arguments  and  proofs  there  given. 
They  were  compiled  as  a  reply  to  ex-Assistant  Attor- 
ney-General James  M.  Beck,  whose  article  In  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Civilization  has  been  reprinted  in  book 

419 


420  Germany's  Point  of  View 

form  and  won  the  approval  of  the  Allies  and  pro- 
Allies  press.  Mr.  Beck  is  a  member  of  the  law  firm 
of  Shearman  and  Sterling,  and  is  upholding  the  pro- 
English  traditions  of  this  firm.  During  the  Civil  War, 
when  the  Union  was  suffering  untold  insults  and  dam- 
ages at  the  hands  of  England,  Shearman  was  the  de- 
fender of  his  country's  worst  enemies,  and  the  motto 
of  the  firm  seems  to  have  been  ever  since,  "  England, 
right  or  wrong..  We  are  for  England  first,  last,  and 
forever ! " 

Since  the  reply  to  Mr.  Beck  in  the  New  York  Times 
was  written,  the  French  Yellow  Book  has  been  pub- 
lished and  other  documents  have  come  to  light  on  the 
strength  of  which  it  is  possible  to  prove  the  inac- 
curacy and  incompleteness  of  Sir  Edward's  Blue  Book 
in  several  particulars.  A  careful  reading  of  the  Blue 
Book  itself,  moreover,  has  revealed  falsifications  of 
such  a  serious  character  that  they  seem  to  be  incom- 
patible with  the  assumption  of  honesty  on  the  part  of 
the  editor. 

The  most  glaring  of  all  the  omissions  is  Sir 
Edward's  suppression  of  the*  dossier  by  which  Austria 
explained  her  demarche  against  Servia.  If  these  Aus- 
trian proofs  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of 
Parliament  when  the  Blue  Book  was  distributed  to 
them,  and  if  they  had  been  read  by  the  American 
people,  when  they  formed  their  impressions  of  the 
causes  of  the  war  by  reading  *'the  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence in  the  first  half  of  August,"  as  Viscount 
Bryce  says,  an  entirely  different  impression  might 
have  been  created.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  nobody  can 
defend  Sir  Edward's  suppression  of  this  important 
document. 


Sir 'Edward's  Evidence  421 

It  was  sent  from  Vienna  on  July  25,  and  presented 
both  in  Paris  and  in  London  on  July  27.  The  French 
Yellow  Book  prints  most*  of  it  as  received  on  that 
day,  and  calls  it  a  "positive  act  of  accusation  against 
Servia/'  In  it  Austria  sets  forth  her  relations  with 
Servia,  and  by  documentary  evidence  and  reports  from 
the  Servian  press,  including  the  official  Servian  Gov- 
ernment paper,  tries  to  prove  the  complicity  of  the 
Servian  Government  in  the  murder  of  Serajevo. 

Sir  Edward  received  the  dossier  on  the  same  day, 
July  2y,  and  in  the  first  paragraph  of  Number  48  of  his 
Blue  Book  gives  a  very  insufficient  summary  of  it,  so 
worded  that  no  reader  would  suspect  that  it  is  based 
on  an  exhaustive  presentation  of  Austria's  grievances 
against  Servia.  Whatever  force,  moreover,  may  have 
remained  in  the  emasculated  summary  is  spoiled  by 
Sir  Edward's  own  commentary  on  it  in  the  last  para- 
graph. This  is  not  a  sportsmanlike  procedure. 
Honesty  demanded  the  publication  of  Austria's  dossier, 
or  if  Sir  Edward  considered  it  too  long,  or  an  insuffi- 
cient explanation  of  Austria's  course,  at  least  the  men- 
tion that  he  had  received  what  Austria  believed  to  be 
proofs  of  the  justice  of  her  contentions. 

As  the  suppression  of  the  dossier  is  the  most  glaring 
omission  from  the  British  Blue  Book,  so  Number  105 
contains  the  most  glaring  falsification.  This  is  the 
famous  despatch  of  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  his  Ambas- 
sador in  Paris,  dated  July  30,  in  which  he  enclosed  as 
a  proof  of  his  assertion  that  Germany  was  assuming 

*  For  the  full  text  of  the  dossier  see  the  Austrian  Red  Book. 
The  Yellow  Book  does  not  print  the  several  Annexes.  In  the 
absence  of  further  proof  it  is  impossible  to  state  whether 
the  Annexes  are  later  additions,  or  whether  the  French  Gov- 
ernment failed  to  print  the  document  in  full. 


422  Germany's  Point  of  View 

a  threatening  attitude  toward  France,  a  telegram  from 
the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  Paul  Cam- 
bon,  the  French  Ambassador  in  London,  dated  July 
31.  The  impossibility  of  enclosing  a  note  of  July  31, 
in  one  written  on  July  30,  was  so  apparent  that  Sir 
Edward  omitted  the  date,  July  31,  in  the  later  issues 
of  his  documents.*  But  even  the  omission  of  this  date 
did  not  make  the  note  square  with  the  facts.  July  30 
was  Thursday.  The  enclosed  note  read:  "The  Ger- 
man army  had  its  advance  posts  on  our  frontiers  yes- 
terday (Friday)."  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  in  the 
later  editions  to  omit  "  Friday."  But  even  this  change 
did  not  suffice,  because  later  on  in  the  note,  as  first 
printed,  these  words  occur: 

All  my  information  goes  to  show  that  the  German  prep- 
arations began  on  Saturday,  the  very  day  on  which  the 
Austrian  note  was  handed  in. 

This  is  another  mistake,  and  to  correct  it  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  had  recourse  to  a  footnote  in  his  later 
reprints.    The  footnote  to  "Saturday"  reads: 

Sic:  in  original.  The  actual  date  of  the  presentation 
of  the  Austrian  ultimatum  was,  in  fact,  Thursday,  July 
23.  The  Servian  reply  was  dated  Saturday,  July  25,  and 
it  is  clearly  to  the  latter  document  that  reference  is  in- 
tended. 

This  sounds  honest.  "Sic:  in  original!"  Unfor- 
tunately for  Sir  Edward  Grey  the  original  despatch 

*For  a  full  discussion  of  these  dates,  see  the  author's 
chapter  in  Why  Europe  is  At  War,  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons, 
191 5.  The  New  York  Times  reprint  of  the  English  docu- 
ments gives  the  first  version;  the  so-called  Blue  Book,  issued 
in  London  Foreign  Office,  September  28,  1914,  gives  the 
second  version. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  423 

has  been  printed  in  the  French  Yellow  Book,  Number 
106,  and  a  comparison  of  Sir  Edward's  version  of  the 
French  despatch  with  the  despatch  itself  reveals  the 
remarkable  fact  that  Sir  Edward  has  re-written  the 
original,  using  the  exact  French  words  wherever  pos- 
sible, but  interpolating  new  ones  whenever  his  several 
alterations  made  this  necessary.  To  make  the  des- 
patch stronger,  Sir  Edward  began  it  with  a  sentence  of 
the  last  paragraph,  which  reads : 

The  German  army's  advance  posts  are  at  our  frontier 
ports. 

And  to  make  it  more  definite  he  added  a  date.  The 
original  French  despatch  is  dated  July  30.  Sir  Ed- 
ward had  it  re-written  for  presentation  to  the  Cabinet 
meeting  on  July  31,  and  possibly  showed  it  to  his  col- 
leagues as  having  just  been  received.  On  July  31  he 
may  have  felt  at  liberty  to  add  to  the  French  state- 
ment "yesterday,"  or  since  the  Cabinet  meeting  was 
on  Friday  to  keep  the  French  sentence,  which  is  writ- 
ten in  the  present  tense,  and  to  add  Friday  in  paren- 
thesis. Whatever  explanation  is  given  one  thing  is 
sure.  Sir  Edward's  first  publication  of  the  French  des- 
patch is  as  impossible  as  the  second.  The  French  note 
contained  neither  "  yesterday  "  nor  "  Friday,"  and  was 
written  in  the  present  tense.  The  English  "transla- 
tion" interpolated  a  date  and  changed  the  present  to 
the  past  tense  "  had." 

And  more !  The  French  note  actually  contains  two 
references  to  "  Saturday,"  to  which  Sir  Edward  felt 
obliged  to  add  his  footnote.     They  read : 

The  preparation  in  the  fortresses  (the  cutting  of  wood, 
mounting  of  guns,  construction  of  batteries,  strengthening 


424  Germany's  Point  of  View 

of  wire  entanglements)  had  already  started  *  in  Germany 
on  Saturday,  the  25th.  .  .  .  The  stations  were  occu- 
pied in  Germany  on  Saturday,  the  25th. 

In  both  cases  "  the  25th  "  is  added  to  Saturday,  and 
as  appears  from  the  note,  no  measures  of  mobilization 
are  spoken  of,  merely  a  re-arrangement  of  the  troops 
on  regular  peace  footing,  and  those  protective  meas- 
ures which  any  commandant  of  a  frontier  fortress 
might  deem  it  necessary  to  take.  Sir  Edward  took 
the  first  passage  as  serving  his  purposes  best,  altered 
the  singular  "  preparation  "  to  the  plural,  and  by  omit- 
ting the  words  which  explain  what  preparations  are 
meant  gave  the  impression  that  the  note  had  reference 
to  steps  generally  referred  to  as  mobilization.  He 
wished  to  convey  the  impression  that  Germany  and 
Austria  had  used  the  Serajevo  murder  as  a  pretext  for 
an  aggressive  war,  and,  therefore,  substituted  for  "  the 
25th  "  the  words  "  the  very  day  on  which  the  Austrian 
note  was  handed  in."  In  this  he  made  a  mistake,  and 
since  this  sentence  had  been  printed  in  his  first  edition, 
had  to  have  recourse  to  a  foot  note. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  Sir  Edward's  falsifica- 
tion of  this  note  further.  Those  who  wish  to  ascer- 
tain the  truth  can  compare  the  English  version  with 
the  French  original.  They  will  then  see  for  them- 
selves which  passages  Sir  Edward  felt  obliged  to 
omit,  and  why,  and  what  changes  he  made  in  the  origi- 
nal sentences  he  used.  One  change  is  rather  note- 
worthy. Sir  Edward's  version  speaks  of  the  ^^  pacific 
intentions  "  of  France,  while  the  French  original  says 
that  "  France  is  resolute." 

*  This  IS  quoted  from  the  New  York  Times  translation. 
The  French  original  is  as  accurately  translated  with  "  begun  '* 
as  with  "  started." 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  425 

Those  who  read  the  whole  French  note  and  may 
gather  from  it  the  impression  that  France  really  be- 
lieved Germany  was  taking  aggressive  military  meas- 
ures on  July  30,  and  had  done  so  for  several  days,  are 
reminded  that  on  the  same  day,  July  30,  Viviani,  the 
French  Premier,  had  telegraphed  to  his  ambassador 
in  St.  Petersburg  instructions  to  urge  Sazonof  to  "  take 
no  immediate  steps  which  might  offer  to  Germany  a 
pretext  for  the  total  or  partial  mobilization  of  her 
forces/'  (Yellow  Book,  Number  loi).  Such  a  des- 
patch would  have  been  nonsense  if  Viviani  had  not 
known  that  Germany  had  not  yet  proceeded  even  to  a 
partial  mobiHzation  of  her  forces.  A  copy  of  this 
despatch  was  sent  to  Paul  Cambon,  the  French  Ambas- 
sador in  London,  and  unless  one  wishes  to  assume  that 
he  wilfully  kept  this  information  from  Sir  Edward 
Grey  —  which,  considering  the  close  relations  of  these 
men  is  incredible  —  Sir  Edward  Grey  knew  that  Ger- 
many had  not  even  partially  mobilized  when  he  pre- 
sented his  falsified  version  of  the  French  note  to  the 
Cabinet  on  Friday,  July  31. 

That  Sir  Edward  is  not  above  insinuating  false  im- 
pressions is  proved  also  by  the  internal  evidence  of  his 
own  Blue  Book.  The  carefully  prepared  edition  of 
September  28,  1914,  contains  an  "  Introductory  Narra- 
tive of  Events."     On  page  ix  Sir  Edward  writes : 

Sir  Edward  Grey  telegraphed  to  Berlin  once  more. 
"  Mediation,"  he  said,  "  was  ready  to  come  into  operation 
by  any  method  that  'Germany  thought  possible,  if  only 
Germany  would  press  the  button  in  the  interest  of  peace." 
The  telegram  was  despatched  at  about  4  o'clock  on  the 
evening  of  the  29th. 

This  appeal  was  followed  almost  immediately  by  a 
strange  response.  About  midnight  a  telegram  arrived  at 
the   Foreign   Office   from   His   Majesty's  Ambassador   at 


426  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Berlin.  The  German  Chancellor  had  sent  for  him  late 
at  night.  He  had  asked  if  Great  Britain  would  promise 
to  remain  neutral  in  a  war,  provided  Germany  did  not 
touch  Holland  and  took  nothing  from  France  but  her 
colonies. 

Turning  to  the  despatches  themselves,  Sir  Edward's 
offer  of  mediation  is  contained  in  Number  84,  while 
the  next  number  contains  the  enquiry  from  the  Ger- 
man Chancellor.  By  an  oversight,  however,  the  last 
paragraph  of  this  despatch  has  not  been  omitted,  and 
proves  that  Number  85  is  not  a  response  to  Number 
84.  The  nearest  approach  to  a  reply  to  Number  84 
contained  in  the  Blue  Book  is  Number  107,  received 
in  London  on  July  31.  When  Sir  Edward,  therefore, 
called  Number  85  a  response  to  Number  84,  and 
printed  the  two  despatches  in  juxtaposition  to  bear  out 
his  statement,  he  was  guilty  of  one  of  those  deceptions 
which  honorable  men  despise. 

On  page  vii  of  his  "Introductory  Narrative  of 
Events,"  Sir  Edward  writes : 

On  the  23d  July  the  Austrian  Ambassador  told  Sir  E. 
Grey  that  an  ultimatum  was  being  handed  to  Servia. 
For  the  first  time  Sir  E.  Grey  heard  "  that  there  would 
be  something  in  the  nature  of  a  time  limit." 

This  statement  is  not  true,  unless  one  wishes  to  assume 
that  the  British  sources  of  information  were  less  than 
those  of  the  French,  and  that  the  French  Government 
intentionally  kept  Sir  Edward  in  the  dark.  The 
French  Government  was  informed  by  its  Ambassador 
in  Vienna  on  July  20  {Yellow  Book,  Number  14),  that 

The  shifts  by  which  Servia  will  no  doubt  wish  to  delay 
a  direct  and  clear  reply  have  been  taken  into  account,  and 
that  is  why  a  brief  delay  will  be  fixed  for  her  to  notify  her 
acceptance  of  her  refusal. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  427 

This  means  that  France  knew  on  July  20  that  the 
note  to  Servia  would  contain  a  time  limit.  And  yet 
Sir  Edward  writes  that  he  first  heard  of  it  when  the 
note  was  presented  on  July  23 ! 

He  also  studiously  refrains  from  stating  in  his  Blue 
Book  that  the  Servian  Minister  in  Berlin  had  declared 
on  July  20  (French  Yellow  Book,  Number  15)  that, 

This  Government  was  ready  to  listen  to  the  request  of 
Austria  arising  out  of  the  Sarajevo  outrage,  provided 
that  she  did  not  demand  judiciary  cooperation. 

Austria  apparently  had  intended  to  ask  this,  but  on 
the  request  of  Germany  dropped  it  and  asked  only  for 
participation  in  the  investigation. 

Nobody  needs  ask  why  Sir  Edward  suppressed  this 
information.  It  was  his  intention  to  present  Germany 
as  bound  to  have  war,  and  unwilling  to  exert  any  mod- 
erating influence  on  Austria.  Sir  Edward,  therefore, 
suppressed  all  information  tending  to  show  that  Ger- 
many had  done  everything  possible  from  the  very  be- 
ginning to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe.  The  several 
efforts  in  this  direction  made  by  Germany  appeared 
from  the  study  of  the  French  Yellow  Book  above,  and 
need  no  repetition  here. 

Only  one  other  despatch  from  the  French  Yellow 
Book  should  be  mentioned  because  it  is  of  incalculable 
importance  for  the  understanding  of  the  causes  of  the 
war,  and  because  Sir  Edward  Grey,  who  must  have 
known  its  bearing,  has  not  referred  to  the  information 
it  contained,  either  in  his  "  Introductory  Narrative  "  or 
in  any  of  his  despatches.  It  is  a  note  {Yellow  Book, 
Number  27,  July  24,  1914),  from  the  French  Acting 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  his  plenipotentiaries  in 
Stockholm,  Belgrade,  London,  St.  Petersburg,  Berlin, 


428  Germany's  Point  of  View 

and  Rome,  and  contains  the  information  sent  him  by 
the  French  Ambassador  in  Vienna.  According  to  this 
the  Servian  Minister  in  Austria  acknowledges  the 
guilt  of  Servians  in  the  murder  of  Serajevo,  and  the 
existence  of  an  anti-Servian  propaganda  in  Servia ! 

Whatever  one  may  think  of  Sir  Edward's  honesty, 
his  consistency  is  admirable,  for  with  unerring  pre- 
cision he  has  omitted  from  his  Blue  Book  every  in- 
formation which  tended  to  show  that  Servia  was  guilty 
on  the  evidence  of  her  own  ministers  {Yellow  Book, 
Number  27)  or  of  Austria's  exhaustive  dossier  {Yel- 
low Book,  Number  75)  ;  that  Servia  was  at  first  will- 
ing to  accept  Austria's  modified  ultimatum  {Yellow 
Book,  Number  15)  ;  that  Germany  exerted  a  moder- 
ating influence  on  Austria  (see  page  255),  in  short 
every  bit  of  information  which  did  not  fit  into  his 
nicely  arranged  case  that  Germany  had  planned  the 
war  and  that  an  innocent  Servia  had  to  serve  as  a  pre- 
text. 

Omission  and  falsification  are  written  large  over 
this  chapter  of  Sir  Edward's  Evidence ;  and  when  the 
passions  have  cooled  and  scholars  study  his  docu- 
ments, he  will  not  escape  the  judgment  which  over- 
takes all  who  by  false  evidence  try  to  prove  a  case. 

Some  despatches  are  included  in  the  British  Blue 
Book  for  which  Sir  Edward  Grey  may  not  have  been 
personally  responsible,  but  whose  variance  with  the 
true  facts  detracts  from  the  credibility  of  his  evidence. 

On  July  30,  Sir  G.  Buchanan,  the  British  Ambas- 
sador at  St.  Petersburg,  reported  two  interviews  he 
had  had  in  company  with  the  French  Ambassador,  with 
the  Russian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  M.  Sazonof 
(British    Blue    Book,    Number    97).      The    French 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence 


429 


[Omitted] 


Ambassador  sent  reports  to  his  home  office  of  the  same 
interviews.  {Yellow  Book,  Numbers  102  and  103). 
There  is  no  reason  whatsoever  to  believe  that  the 
French  Ambassador  or  his  home  office  altered  what 
Sazonof  had  told  them,  for  nobody  will  suspect  the 
French  of  falsifying  despatches  in  the  interest  of  Ger- 
many. The  notes  are  too  long  to  be  reprinted  in  full, 
but  a  few  passages  deserve  to  be  placed  side  by  side. 

FRENCH   NO.    102  ENGLISH    NO.   97 

M.  Sazonof,  whom  I  have 
informed  of  your  desire  to 
see,  avoided  any  military 
measure  that  might  give 
Germany  a  pretext  for  gen- 
eral mobilization  [Note :  his 
instructions  read  "  total  or 
partial  mobilization"],  re- 
plied that  in  the  course  of 
last  night  the  General  Staff 
had  suspended  the  execution 
of  some  precautionary  mili- 
tary measures,  so  as  to 
avoid  any  misunderstand- 
ing. ...  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Russian  General 
Staff  and  Admiralty  have 
received  alarming  informa- 
tion as  to  the  preparation  of 
the  German  Army  and 
Navy. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Sir  G.  Buchanan  omits  all  ref- 
erence to  the  suspension  of  the  Russian  mobilization, 
which  was  designed  to  prevent  Germany  from  taking 
any  military  steps  on  her  part.  Such  an  admission 
would  not  have  squared  with  Sir  Edward's  Evidence, 
according  to  which  Germany  had  begun  her  prepara- 
tions days  before. 


M.  Sazonof  told  us  that 
absolute  proof  was  in  pos- 
session of  Russian  Govern- 
ment that  Germany  was 
making  military  and  naval 
preparations  against  Russia. 


430 


Germany's  Point  of  View 


In  the  second  paragraph  the  Russian  "alarming  in- 
formation" has  been  turned  by  Sir  G.  Buchanan  into 
"  absolute  proof."  It  is  well  known  that  Germany  did 
not  order  mobilization  until  August  i,  as  of  August  2. 
While,  therefore,  some  unreliable  and  alarming  infor- 
mation might  have  come  to  Sazonof,  he  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  spoken  of  "absolute  proof." 

The  discrepancies  between  the  French  and  English 
accounts  of  the  second  interview  are  even  more  aston- 
ishing, and  show  Sir  G.  Buchanan's  or  Sir  Edward's 
animus  toward  Germany.  M.  Sazonof  had  repeated 
to  the  two  ambassadors  his  interview  with  the  German 
Ambassador. 


FRENCH    NO.    IO3 

The  German  ambassador 
called  tonight  upon  M.  Sa- 
zonof to  urge  again,  but  in 
less  categorical  terms,  that 
Russia  should  cease  her 
military  preparations,  af- 
firming that  Austria  would 
do  nothing  against  the  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  Servia. 


[The  same] 


BRITISH  NO.  97,  SECOND  PART 

German  ambassador  had 
a  second  interview  with 
Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs at  2  a.  m.,  when  for- 
mer completely  broke  down 
on  seeing  that  war  was  in- 
evitable. 

[The  reference  to  Rus- 
sia's mobilization  is 
omitted.] 

He  appealed  to  M.  Sa- 
zonof to  make  some  sugges- 
tion which  he  could  tele- 
graph to  German  Govern- 
ment as  a  last  hope.  M. 
Sazonof  accordingly  drew 
up  and  handed  to  German 
Ambassador  a  formula  in 
French,  of  which  following 
is  translation: 

"  If  Austria,  recognizing 
that  the  conflict  with  Servia 
has   assumed    character   of 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence 


431 


Count  de  Pourtales  prom- 
ised to  urge  this  proposal 
on  his  Government.  In  M. 
Sazonof's  opinion  the  ac- 
ceptance of  his  proposal  by- 
Austria  will  have  as  a  log- 
ical consequence  the  open- 
ing of  a  deliberation  of  the 
powers  in  London. 


question  of  European  inter- 
est, declares  herself  ready 
to  eliminate  from  her  ulti- 
matum points  which  violate 
principle  of  sovereignty  of 
Servia,  Russia  engages  to 
stop  all  military  prepara- 
tions." 

Preparations  for  general 
mobilization  will  be  pro- 
ceeded with  if  this  proposal 
is  rejected  by  Austria,  and 
inevitable  result  will  be  a 
European  war.  Excitement 
herehas  reached  suchapitch 
that  if  Austria  refuses  to 
make  a  concession,  Russia 
cannot  hold  back,  and  now 
that  she  knows  that  Ger- 
many is  arming  [Note:  this 
was  written  on  the  same 
day  on  which  Viviani  said 
that  Germany  had  not  even 
begun  partial  mobilization] 
she  can  hardly  postpone  for 
strategical  reasons,  convert- 
ing partial  into  general 
mobilization. 


According  to  the  French  version,  Sazonof  was 
counting  with  the  possibility  of  a  peaceful  solution, 
while  Buchanan  quotes  him  as  practically  ready  for 
war.  Why  this  discrepancy?  And  why,  it  may  be 
asked,  did  Austria  not  seize  this  opportunity  and  by 
accepting  Sazonof's  offer  stop  the  Russian  mobiliza- 
tion? 

The  answer  adds  another  black  mark  to  Sir  Ed- 
ward's diplomacy,  for  at  the  request  of  his  Ambas- 
sador at  St.  Petersburg,  Sazonof  withdrew  his  offer, 
substituting  for  it  one  which  was  impossible  of  ac- 


432  Germany's  Point  of  View 

ceptance.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  serious  charge 
that  can  be  made  against  Sir  Edward,  but  it  is  fully 
substantiated. 

Sazonof  had  made  his  offer  late  on  July  30,  or  more 
properly  in  the  night  of  July  30-31,  at  the  immediate 
request  of  the  German  Ambassador  and  without  con- 
sultation with  the  British  and  French  Ambassadors. 
On  the  next  day,  July  31,  the  French  Ambassador  re- 
ported to  Paris  {Yellow  Book,  Number  113)  : 

M.  Sazonof  informs  me  that  he  has  modified  his  for- 
mula, at  the  request  of  the  British  Ambassador,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Then  he  transmits  Sazonof's  new  formula,  which 
makes  greater  demands  on  Austria,  the  chief  of  which 
is  that  Austria  "stay  the  advance  of  her  troops  on 
Servian  territory,"  and  instead  of  promising  that  Rus- 
sia would  "  stop  all  military  preparations,"  ends  with 
the  ambiguous  phrase :  "  Russia  undertakes  to  main- 
tain her  waiting  attitude."  Since  Russia  at  that  time 
had  been  vigorously  mobilizing  for  some  time,  and  at 
least  since  July  25^  according  to  the  Czar's  own  tele- 
gram, maintaining  "her  waiting  attitude"  cannot 
mean  stopping  "all  military  preparations." 

Sir  Edward  cannot  claim  that  his  Ambassador  had 
acted  de  suo,  and  contrary  to  Sir  Edward's  wishes,  for 
on  the  same  day,  July  31,  he  himself  writes  to  Bu- 
chanan (British  Blue  Book,  Number  no*)  : 

The  German  Ambassador  asked  me  to  urge  the  Russian 
Government  to  show  goodwill  in  the  discussions  and  to 
suspend  their  military  preparations.  ...  I  informed 
the  German  Ambassador  that,  as  regards  military  prepara- 
tions, I  did  not  see  how  Russia  could  be  urged  to  sus- 


*See  also  Blue  Book,  Number  103. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  433 

pend  them,  unless  some  limit  were  put  by  Austria  to  the 
advance  of  her  troops  in  Servia. 

Sir  Edward's  wishes,  therefore,  were  carried  out 
when  Sazonof  altered  his  formula  at  the  request  of 
Sir  G.  Buchanan.  The  new  formula  is  not  printed  in 
Sir  Edward's  Blue  Book,  and  the  impression  is  con- 
veyed that  Austria  and  Germany  refused  to  consider 
Sazonof's  offer,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  British 
diplomats  themselves  requested  and  obtained  its  with- 
drawal. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  has  not  yet  explained  Buchanan's 
and  his  own  actions  in  this  matter,  but  until  he  explains 
it,  the  only  possible  inference  is  that  Sir  Edward  Grey 
did  not  want  Russia  to  make  a  proposal  to  Austria  and 
Germany  that,  they  were  likely  to  accept.  In  short, 
Sir  Edward  wanted  war ! 

He  wanted  war,  because  he  had  prepared  for  it,  and 
because  he  had  begun  his  mobilization  weeks  before, 
certainly  as  early  as  the  end  of  June.  His  Blue  Book 
begins  with  July  20,  but  this  is  only  a  feint,  as  is 
proved  by  the  following  affidavit  in  the  possession  of 
the  author : 

In  a  speech  before  the  Boston  Press  Club  on  Sunday, 
January  14,  Forbes  Sutherland  made  the  following  state- 
ments : 

That  for  several  years  he  had  been  a  member  of  the 
British  rnilitary  intelligence  department. 

That  he  landed  in  New  York  toward  the  end  of  June 
and  he  there  found  a  cablegram  from  the  home  office  in 
London,  already  three  days  old,  telling  him  to  report 
immediately. 

That  he  telephoned  to  his  local  chief  in  Montreal,  Can- 
ada, to  inquire  what  it  was  all  about,  and  that  he  was 
told  that  it  was  for  the  European  service. 

That  he  had  returned  to  London  and  that  about  one 
week  before  the  first  declaration  of  war  he  had  gone  to 


434  Germany's  Point  of  View 

Antwerp  with  one  of  the  heads  of  the  intelligence  de- 
partment to  concert  measures  with  the  head  of  the  Bel- 
gium Secret  Service. 

That  he  was  now  in  this  country  overseeing  the  ship- 
ment of  horses  for  the  British  army. 

This  affidavit  v^as  published  in  the  Fatherland, 
April  14,  191 5,  and  since  Mr.  Sutherland  was  then 
employed  by  a  prominent  New  England  paper  as 
military  expert,  the  editor  of  this  paper  complained 
of  the  publication,  but  had  to  confess  that  the  affidavit 
was  correct  when  the  author  offered  to  publish  any 
correction  if  it  had  been  wrong. 

Why  did  Sir  Edward  recall  Mr.  Sutherland  in  June 
and  send  him  to  Antwerp,  on  his  arrival  in  London, 
"to  concert  measures  with  the  head  of  the  Belgium 
Secret  Service''?  How  does  this  square  with  the 
studied  impression  conveyed  by  his  Blue  Book  that 
he  had  no  thought  of  war  before  July  20,  and  took 
no  active  steps  until  days  later? 

Another  affidavit  in  the  possession  of  the  author 
reads  as  follows: 

In  Viersen,  Germany,  is  a  very  large  concern  which 
has  over  2,000  retail  stores  in  Germany  dealing  in  coffee. 
The  name  is  Kaiser's  Kaffee  Geschaeft.  The  main  stock- 
holder's name,  who  is  also  the  president  of  the  com- 
pany, is  Comerzienrat  Joseph  Kaiser.  This  company  has 
coffee  plantations  in  Brazil,  and  on  July  22  the  home 
office  cabled  a  large  amount  of  money  to  their  Brazil 
office  via  London.  England  attached  this  amount  and 
did  not  forward  same  to  Brazil. 

Again  one  wonders  why  England  should  have  taken 
this  action  on  July  22,  a  day  before  the  Austrian  note 
was  presented  to  Servia,  if  Sir  Edward  had  no  inten- 
tion of  bringing  about  an  European  war.  Similar 
instances  have  been  collected  in  large  numbers  and 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  435 

will  undoubtedly  be  edited  soon  and  presented  as  a 
strong  indictment  of  Sir  Edward  Grey.  He  will  be 
forced  to  explain  them  —  which  he  has  refused  to  do 
as  yet  —  or  stand  convicted  either  of  having  treacher- 
ously plotted  the  war,  or  having  falsified  his  evidence. 
The  present  discussion  is  concerned  with  Sir  Edward's 
published  evidence  and  may,  therefore,  disregard  the 
other  information  except  in  so  far  as  it  forms  a  back- 
ground against  which  the  published  evidence  may  be 
surveyed. 

The  British  Blue  Book  is  remarkably  silent  on  the 
subject  of  British  mobilization.  The  first  reference 
to  the  British  fleet  occurs  in  Number  48,  July  27, 
where  Sir  Edward  quotes  his  interview  with  the 
Austrian  Ambassador  as  follows : 

I  pointed  out  that  our  fleet  was  to  have  dispersed 
today,  but  we  had  felt  unable  to  let  it  disperse.  We 
should  not  think  of  calling  up  reserves  at  this  moment, 
and  there  was  no  menace  in  what  we  had  done  about  our 
fleet. 

This  statement  is  a  falsehood,  for  the  fleet  was  to 
have  dispersed  three  days  earlier,  but  had  been  kept 
mobiHzed  by  Winston  Churchill,  First  Lord  of  the 
Admiralty,  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the 
Cabinet.*     This  is  today  an  acknowledged  fact,  and 

*  See  also  letter  by  Admiral  Lord  Fisher  to  Sir  Henry 
Lucy,  published  in  New  York  Evening  Sun  and  Milwaukee 
Free  Press,  April  19,  191 5.  '*  I  am  in  close  touch  with 
Winston  [Churchill].  He  has  been  splendid  for  three  things. 
First,  the  appointment  to  the  command  of  the  fleet  of  Jellicoe. 
Second,  mobilizing  before  war  was  declared.  Third,  buying 
[this  is  euphemistic  for  seizing.  E.  v.  M.]  the  two  Turkish 
dreadnaughts.  .  .  .  Mobilization  of  the  fleet  before  the 
war  upon  the  innocent  pretext  of  an  expected  visit  from  the 
king,  was  a  clever  strategy  that  found  the  grand  fleet  oppor- 
tunely in  the   North  Sea  when,  a  few   days  later,  war  was 


436  Germany's  Point  of  View 

appears  also  from  a  despatch  in  the  French  Yellow 
Book,  Number  66,  which  reads  in  part  as  follows : 

The  attitude  of  Great  Britain  is  defined  by  the  stop- 
page of  the  demobilization  of  her  fleet.  The  first  Lord 
of  the  Admiralty  on  Friday  already  [that  is  July  24] 
discreetly  took  this  step  on  his  own  initiative.  Tonight 
Sir  Edward  Grey  and  his  colleagues  decided  to  publish 
this  news.  The  result  is  due  to  the  conciliatory  attitude 
of  Servia  and  Russia. 

The  effect  of  this  announcement,  as  is  generally 
known,  was  to  stiffen  the  military  party  of  Russia,  who 
saw  in  it  the  proof  of  England's  intention  to  live  up 
to  the  demands  of  her  recently  concluded  naval  agree- 
ment with  Russia.  The  trustworthiness  of  Sir  Ed- 
ward's evidence,  however,  can  be  gauged  by  the  fact 
that  he  writes  over  his  own  name  as  having  taken 
place  on  July  27  what  actually  took  place  three  days 
earlier,  on  July  24. 

The  mobilization  of  the  British  fleet  could  not  be 
kept  a  secret  long,  and  even  if  there  had  been  no 
ulterior  motive  in  publishing  it,  it  would  have  had  to 
be  announced  soon  after  it  had  taken  place.  It  was 
not  so  with  the  mobilization  of  the  land  forces,  and 
readers  of  the  Blue  Book  have  received  the  impres- 
sion that  no  steps  had  been  taken  in  advance  of  the 
outbreak  of  hostilities.  This  is  due  to  Sir  Edward's 
studious  omission  of  all  references  to  this  subject. 
The  French  Yellow  Book  is  less  reticent,  and  in 
Number  108,  July  30,  Paul  Cambon  reports  what  Sir 
Edward  had  told  him  of  his  interview  with  the  German 
Ambassador : 

declared,  with  the  result  of  bottling  up  the  Qerman  fleet  in 
the  helpless  condition  in  which  it  remains  to  this  day." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  said  that 
only  he  prepares  for  war  who  plans  war. 


Sir  Edward's  Evidence  437 

But  my  German  colleague  questioned  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  foreign  affairs  as  to  the  military  preparations 
of  England.  Sir  Edward  Grey  replied  that  they  had  no 
offensive  character,  but  that  in  the  present  state  of  affairs 
on  the  continent  it  was  natural  to  take  some  precautions. 

This  interview  has  been  suppressed  in  Sir  Edward's 
evidence ! 

But  it  is  needless  to  pursue  the  investigation  fur- 
ther. Those  who  have  followed  it  may  or  may  not 
agree  with  Dr.  Conybeare  of  Oxford  that  Sir  Edward 
Grey  is  "  a  sinister  liar  who  forever  has  peace  on  his 
lips  and  war  in  his  heart,"  but  they  cannot  deny  that 
Sir  Edward's  evidence  is  tainted  with  falsifications 
and  omissions. 

It  was,  however,  largely  on  Sir  Edward's  evidence 
that  Germany  was  condemned  in  this  and  other  neu- 
tral countries.  From  this  very  evidence  it  now 
appears,  when  it  is  corrected  and  supplemented,  that 
Germany  and  Austria,  far  from  plotting  an  European 
war,  were  slowly  but  surely  pushed  into  it  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey.  He  tried  to  cover  up  his  tracks,  and, 
barring  a  few  slips  in  his  Blue  Book,  might  have  suc- 
ceeded if  it  had  not  been  for  the  publication  of  the 
voluminous  French  Yellow  Book.  Taking  these  two 
publications  together  and  reading  them  against  the 
background  of  history,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
present  war  is  the  result  of  a  gigantic  conspiracy 
against  Germany.  In  such  a  case,  individual  likes 
and  dislikes  have  no  place,  and  if  justice  has  not 
entirely  forsaken  this  world,  the  sympathy  of  all  right- 
minded  people  who  see  the  causes  of  the  war  in  their 
true  light  must  be  with  Germany. 


INDEX 

Alsace,  Lorraine,  history  of,  and  present  condition,  78-100 

America,  defense  of  dum-dum  bullets  at  the  Hague,  48-55; 
exportation  of  arms,  325-327;  growing  sentiment  for  Ger- 
many, 122-125;  hardships  among  its  poor  worse  than  in 
Belgium,  193,  194;  partial  and  unreliable  news,  180-185,  193; 
insistence  on  her  rights  as  a  neutral  would  render  Belgium 
relief  work  unnecessary,  197-199,  368,  369;  the  Nation  and 
other  important  papers  misinformed,  129,  135,  136;  American 
idea,  355-362;  declares  export  of  arms  a  cause  of  war,  360; 
where  she  will  stand  at  close  of  war,  370 

Arms,  export  of,  by  U.  S.,  351-362 

Atrocities,  28-32,  179,  184,  185 

Austria,  attitude  before  the  war,  242-256;  her  dossier  sup- 
pressed by  Sir  Edward  Grey,  420-424 

Belgium,  actual  conditions  after  the  conquest,  35-38,  199; 
atrocities  by  franc-tireurs,  31-39,  185,  187,  188;  Brussels 
documents,  65,  66,  131,  135-139,  413-417;  Congo  atrocities, 
134,  135;  distrust  of  England  in  1913,  115-117;  famine  denied 
by  American  newspaper  men,  193,  196-199;  gratitude  for 
German  kindness,  34,  35;  great  possessions,  135;  hostility  to 
Germany  in  recent  years,  9,  10;  letter  of  Minister  to  Russia, 
6-8;  Louvain,  30-38,  199,  200;  helped  by  Germany,  34,  35,  126, 
188,  199;  need  of  impartial  commission,  31,  s^;  neutrality, 
168-174;  neutrality  and  England,  47,  48,  101-107;  neutrality 
and  France,  68,  69 ;  neutrality  broken  by  herself,  47,  48,  65-72, 
114-118,  135-139;  treaties  of  neutrality  of  1831  and  1839,  1-13, 
131-139;  treaty  of  neutrality  of  1870,  113,  132-139;  illiteracy 
of,  374;  "conversations'*  with  England,  408,  412-418;  defense 
vs.  Brussels  documents,  413-417 

Beck,  James  M.,  writings  and  reply  to,  419,  420 

Bernhardi,  limited  influence  of,  56,  317 

Bismarck,  character  and  achievements,  328-337 

Blue  Book,  British,  see  Sir  Edward  Grey's  evidence 

Bombs,  asphyxiating,  used  by  France  first,  388 

Bowles,  T.  Gibson,  358 

Brussels,  the,  documents,  65,  66,  131,  I35-I39,  412-418 

Bryan,  W.  J.,  note  to  England,  365,  366 ;  MacFayden  interview, 

417 
Bryce,  Viscount,  403 
Bulgaria,  338-350 

439 


440  Index 


Cables,  why  England  cut  the  German,  2)73 

Carnegie  endowment  for  international  peace,  committee's  re- 
port on  the  Balkan  wars,  345-347 

Casement,  Sir  Roger,  letter  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  380-387 

Censorship  of  news,  British,  24-27,  103,  119,  136,  137,  180-185, 
191,  192 

Choate,  Joseph,  betrays  United  States  at  Hague  Conference, 
355,  356 

Church,  Samuel  H.,  confidence  in  Sir  Edward  Grey,  401-403 

Churchill,  Winston,  113,  114 

Cleveland,  President,  on  duties  of  neutrals,  359 

Concentration  camps,  280,  281 

Conybeare,  F.  C,  letter  on  Sir  Edward  Grey,  391-405,  437 

Consuls,  exequaturs  withdrawn  from,  200,  201 

Czar  of  Russia,  responsible  for  the  war,  104-106,  128 

Declaration  of  Paris  and  of  London,  303-327,  358,  364 
Dernburg,  Dr.  Bernhard,  and  Brussels  documents,  414 
**Der  Tag,"  yy,  7^ 
Dum-dum  bullets,  48-56 

Embargo,  see  Exportation  of  arms ;  could  have  forced  England 

to  observe  International  Law,  z^7 
England,  see  Great  Britain 
Exportation  of  arms,  351-362 

Firth,  William,  falsely  accuses  Germany,  376 

Fisher,  Baron,  on  the  conduct  of  war,  57 

France,  Alsace-Lorraine,  78-100;  dum-dum  bullets,  use  of,  48- 
56;  most  valuable  provinces  held  by  Germany,  108;  official 
documents  (the  Yellow  Book),  216-268,  405,  407,  408,  420- 
437;  voices  against  England,  101-103;  wanton  destruction  of 
churches  by  the  government  in  times  of  peace,  203-208 ;  uses 
asphyxiating  bombs  first,  388 

Franc-tireur  attacks,  32-39 

Freedom  of  the  sea,  355,  2,72> 

Gallivan,  Congressman,  advocates  embargo  on  food,  369 

Gas  bombs,  used  by  France  first,  388 

German  Emperor,  rights  and  duties  of,  20-23 ;  estimate  of  by 
Houston  Chamberlain,  38-42;  estimate  of  by  ex-President 
Taft,  92;  Germany's  love  for,  211-215;  his  practical  Chris- 
tianity, 211-215;  man  of  peace,  38-42;  misquoted,  38,  129,  130; 
tried  to  avert  war,  127- 131 

German  Chancellor  von  Bethmann-Holweg,  11,  12;  and  the 
"scrap  of  paper,"  10-13,  173,  174 

Germany,  Alsace-Lorraine,  78-100;  achievements  in  Kiau-chau, 
59-64;  American  estimate  of  German  sailors,  202;  atrocities 
denied,  29-32,  179,  184,  185;  as  a  world  power,  72>,  yj,  317, 
318;   attitude  before  the   war   in   the   light  of   the   French 


Index  441 

Yellow  Book,  216-268;  in  the  light  of  letters  by  German 
scientists,  269-279;  broke  no  treaty  by  invading  Belgium, 
65,  66  \  her  character  as  exempHfied  by  Bismarck,  328-337; 
character  of  her  soldiers,  140-148;  character  of  her  sailors, 
202;  criticized  by  American  travelers,  162-168,  201,  202;  con- 
duct of  the  war,  28-42 ;  conduct  in  Belgium,  374,  376 ;  de- 
fended by  American  newspaper  men,  186-189,  193,  196-199; 
conduct  of  naval  war,  303-309;  constitution  of,  14-27;  "Der 
Tag,"  toast  explained,  yy,  78;  did  not  begin  the  war,  loi, 
104-106;  food  supply,  280-302;  franc-tireur  attacks  on  sol- 
diers, 32-39;  invasion  of  Belgium  paralleled  by  other  coun- 
tries, 175-179;  odds  against  her,  74-76;  help  given  to  Belgium, 
34,  35,  126,  188,  199,  374;  Prussia,  91-93,  14-23;  "scrap  of 
paper,"  incident,  10-13,  173,  174;  self  control  of,  208,  209; 
victories  thus  far  in  the  war,  107-111;  unfairly  treated,  358; 
exportation  of  arms,  351-362;  British  Order-in-Council,  363- 
2f>^\  her  submarine  blockade,  372;  and  the  Brussels  docu- 
ments, 412-418;  forced  into  the  war  by  Sir  Edward  Grey,  437 

Great  Britain,  alliance  with  Japan,  56-64;  animosity  against 
Gerrnany,  40,  57;  attitude  before  the  war,  222-231,  259-268; 
Belgium  neutrality  and,  103,  132-139;  conduct  of  the  war, 
43-57,  208-211,  308-310;  conduct  of  African  War,  210,  280; 
conduct  of  River  War,  112,  113;  conduct  of  naval  war,  303- 
314;  treatment  of  Ireland,  149-161 ;  dum-dum  bullets,  use  of, 
48-56;  expressions  of  neutrality  in  1870,  69-71,  132-134,  197; 
invites  criminals  to  enHst,  209;  and  the  "law  of  nations,"  303- 
327;  London  Times  and  Belgian  neutrality,  132-139;  naval 
agreement  with  Russia,  43-46,  404,  409;  "naval  holiday,"  43; 
news  from  her  unreliable,  24-27,  119,  120,  126,  127,  182,  191, 
192;  plans  for  a  Belgian  campaign,  131-134,  412-418;  refuses 
to  ratify  the  Hague  Conventions,  46,  68-72,  305,  307,  308, 
314,  316-327;  refuses  to  guarantee  neutrality  of  Belgium,  1-8; 
trying  to  starve  women  and  children  of  Germany,  280,  281, 
363-368 ;  violation  of  neutral  territory  and  waters,  8,  65,  186 ; 
voices  against  the  war,  101-106;  web  of  calumny  against 
Germany,  190-202;  Order-in-Council,  363,  367;  atrocities  by, 
378-380;  treatment  of  Casement,  380-387;  deluded  by  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  42i-zt28;  his  evidence,  401-437;  mobilization, 
435,  436;  importation  of  wheat,  371,  2>7^',  why  German  cables 
were  cut,  2>7Z 

Greece,  treatment  of  Bulgaria  by,  347,  348 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  in  the  light  of  the  French  ''Yellow  Book," 
216-268;  reply  to  Belgian  fears  of  an  English  invasion  in 
1913,  114-119;  what  he  left  unsaid  on  August  3,  1914,  68-72; 
Conybeare's  letter  on,  375,  391-400;  his  evidence,  401-437; 
could  have  prevented  the  war,  406 

Hague  Conference,  conventions  of  neutrality,  46-48;  discussion 
of  dum-dum  bullets,  48-57;  points  for  next  conference,  55; 
purpose  of,  of  1907,  357 


442  Index 

Holland,  protests  British  Order-in-Council,  s^s,  364,  367,  371 

Illiteracy  of  Belgium,  374 
International  law,  303-3i4»  354,  355 

Italy,  dislike  of  England,  121 ;  ex-Premier  Giolitti's  statement 
misinterpreted,  118-124;  not  unfriendly  to  Germany,  120-121 

Japan,  capture  of  Kiau-chau,  59-64;  violation  of  neutrality,  64 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  estimate  of  England,  366 

Kaiser's  Kaffee  Geschaeft,  money  of,  held  up  by  England,  434 

Kiau-chau,  59-64 

Kitchener,  Field  Marshal,  112,  113 

Law  of  nations,  see  International  law 
'  Louvain,  not  destroyed,  32,  36,  38,  187,  191,  200 
Luxemburg,  and  neutrality,  69-71,  131-133 

MacFayden,  D.,  interview  with  Secretary  Bryan,  417 
Miller,  C.  R.,  and  embargo  on  arms,  354,  355 
Miltronov,  Prof.,  and  Russia's  ambition,  410 
Mobilization,  British,  435,  436 
Morgan,  J.  P.,  commission  on  munitions  of  war,  370 

Neutrals,  rights  and  duties  of,  357,  363-377 
Nietzsche,  admired  by  the  French,  76,  yy,  94,  95,  317 
Norman,  C.  H.,  pamphlet  on  the  war,  411 

Press,  the  American,  partial  and  unreliable  news  service,  119, 
120,  126,  127,  136,  137,  181-189,  191,  192,  203,  wicked  campaign 
by  in  England  and  Germany,  399 

Review  of  Reviezvs,  American,  on  Russian  militarism,  409,  410 

Rheims,  the  true  story,  207,  208 

Roberts,  Field  Marshal,  58,  416 

Russia,  attitude  before  the  war,  217-241,  252-268;  naval  agree- 
ment with  England,  43-46,  404,  409;  responsible  for  the  war, 
loi,  107,  128,  129;  suspends  mobilization,  429;  influenced  by 
England  to  war,  431-433 

"Scrap  of  paper,  a,"  incident,  10-13,  173,  174 
Serajevo,  the  murder  at,  105,  124,  125,  243,  424,  427 
Servia,  treatment  of  Macedonia  by,  345-347 
Sutherland,  Forbes,  British  officer  in  American  newspaper  em- 
ploy, 433,  434 

Tipperary,  the  meaning  of,  149-161 
Treitschke,  94,  317 


Index  443 

Viviani,  M.,  French  Premier,  408 

War,  naval  and  international  law,  303-330 

Wheat,  America  drained  of,  371,  372 

White  Paper,  British,  see  Sir  Edward  Grey^s  evidence 

Yellow  Book,  French,  216-268,  405,  407,  408,  420-437 


W"-L  INCRpI^^^  ^  °'^'^E  DUE  TuL  "ETURN 
^AV  AND  ro  ^J°  ^°  «Nrs  ON^H^'^^ALTV 
OVEROUH.  "-°    ON     THE    s/vl^^H^".'!;! 


^>4)' 


ie 


%6 


'F^APR  28  1938 
APR     1  1940 


..f  f^V^ct 


■^^ 


.,ov.o 


AP      21?    1«<^' 
JUN  28  1940 


Si 

\M  J  S  2ooy 


^^  2l-50m-l  ' 


U„C- BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


355.315 


.CkjLX 


UNIVERSnY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


